Epstein, Elitism, Evolution, and Morality. Save for later Reblogpost

servicesix
@servicesix

Send Private MessageSubscribe2

Why are so many wealthy elites pedophiles? And why are they Satanists, too? It seems, in many ways, like a simple rhetorical. Amid the average American’s frustration and distrust with the pollical class, it’s easy to get lost in anger and forget there is a process, and underlying set of conditions that led us here. What where those conditions? Why did they materialize? What can we do about them?

The first thing we need to do is understand some basic facts about evolutionary biology. Human beings have, over our history, experienced what is known as differentiated reproductive success. In specific terms, the ratio of women who reproduced compared to men who reproduced is 2.63:1.[1] What that means in practical terms is that, over our history, a small number of men had children with more than one woman. Those using this as an excuse to justify debauchery should take note; polygynous societies are always more violent than monogamous societies. We shall go down that rabbit hole another time in a different article, for now it is important to remember that most of the men who ever lived died, usually violently, before they ever had the opportunity to reproduce.

Thus climbing to the top of the hierarchy, for males, is especially important. It is also important to remember that evolution is an extremely complex process where a multitude of factors contribute to a given result. For example, the duck billed platypus and mosquito share a common ancestor, though it was certainly hundreds of millions of years ago. Sometimes similar conditions can cause similar results, Old World vultures and New World vultures are not directly related other than they are both birds, but a similar biological niche gave them unique adaptations that are apparently the same.[2] Processes this long and complex need to be looked at carefully, and it is also important to remember they hold in general terms for groups over long periods of time. What we see now may be an effect that can be re-charted, an anomaly, or some combination of the two.

Youth has always been a valuable commodity for women, (though not for men) in the reproductive game. Over our history, childbirth reliably killed roughly 1 out of every 8 women, and it was always so, all the way up until 1935.[3] Though we now know that having children at an extremely young age contributes at least in part to the onset of cervical cancer later in life, this might not have always been the case, or it may not have mattered. In societies that did not have access to accoutrements of modern medicine, particularly when 40-60% of women’s offspring will not make it past the age of 5, as was the case until the late 19^th and early 20^th Century even in the Western World, it makes evolutionary sense for a woman to have children as young as possible and continue to have children until she no longer can. Younger bodies are more resilient against infection and hemorrhaging (the later is the primary cause of most maternal deaths) and can simply take the tremendous burden childbirth placed on our ancestors. From a male’s point of view, there is less incentive to spend resources wooing and then taking care of a mate who is less likely to survive the reason he was wooing her in the first place.

Therefore we can see evolutionary pressures placing a value on youthfulness in women without puerility having a similar value for men. This can be compounded by the effects of promiscuity on the social order. Just as in pre-Christian ancient (and decadent) Rome as well as in the brothels of 17^th-19^th Century London and Paris “virgin” prostitutes were in increasingly higher demand, so to a similar effect can be observed in the United States. Venereal disease became widespread as men visited brothels and therefore had sex with the same relatively few women. Though no accurate statistics exist, it is no accident that the disease of syphilis became widespread as Europe became increasingly urban during the Renaissance and London saw a meteoric rise in gonorrhea and syphilis in the 19^th Century as England’s urbanization went out of control during the industrial revolution. Men evolved to be polygynous, not promiscuous. The innovation of allowing men to have but one public wife over time allowed more men to marry, to be productive longer in life, and be less violent toward one another as they competed for mates. It did, however, lead to more unfilled sexual desire and the desire for status that multiple sexual partners brings. The Victorians, though certainly right about the need for monogamy (from the point of view of social harmony) greatly curbed the ability of high status males to engage in the full trappings of high status sexually. The large numbers of male immigrants and factory workers who could find no wife also contributed to large number of low class brothels. In 1856 three London Hospitals alone treated 30,000 patients (male and female) for venereal disease[4] in a city which, in 1860, had a population of 3,188,485.[5] Many others were treated as outpatients at various centers, and undoubtedly wealthy clientele kept their treatments a secret with private doctors (there is ample evidence for this) and many others simply could not afford treatment. If 1% of the city of London was treated for venereal disease at three hospitals alone and the aforementioned factors tell us that this is a low estimate, we can see how the threat of debilitating and not readily curable disease would lead to increasing pressure in a direction that evolution already tilts us towards. The only surefire ways to be free from disease were abstinence, monogamy, or sex with a virgin. Humans are not good at the first course of action, men are especially poor at the second, and that leaves sexual intercourse with a virgin as an attractive option for men intent on not contracting a venereal disease. The high demand for virgins led to younger and younger girls being pushed into the prostitution trade, along with a deluge of schemes to either guarantee or fake virginity.[6]

This is not to say that American women are especially likely to have sexually transmitted diseases. Although prostitutes and other forms of “side women” are likely to have higher than average rates of infection, they are nowhere near what it was during Victorian, Roman, or any other society’s period of professionalized promiscuity. The lack of widespread STD infection is only a result of modern antibiotics and prophylactics made available in the 20^th Century. In terms of human history (and evolution) this has only been the last 5 minutes. The point is, that high levels of promiscuity, especially in females, will tilt a mental process towards favoring ever younger females and it is a process that already favors youth to begin with. It can now be seen how that process could run amok, or become dysfunctional, and result in a significant number of very powerful men seeking prepubescent girls and even being enabled by certain high status women. Though I suspect this is not the real reason pedophilia (we haven’t gotten to Satanism yet) has caught on in certain circles. The problem with all the aforementioned arguments is that human populations weren’t really dense enough prior to the Neolithic Revolution 10-15,000 years ago to support widespread epidemics. How deeply ingrained the disease paradigm could have become in the human psyche in that short of evolutionary time is up for debate. To reiterate, however, there are powerful evolutionary forces that favor youth in male mate selection and those forces are only compounded in a society that has some form of promiscuity. The real reason, however, what pushed a coterie of the super wealthy, politically connected members of the aristocracy of pull into such a vile set of behaviors is something even simpler: because they can.        

Wealthy and politically powerful people are always exempt from any society’s rules, although there may be special rules for them. In the Trobriand Islands, only certain village headmen are allowed to have polygynous marriages.[7] Frank Serpico detailed how in New York City it was common for many patrol officers to take small bribes to allow for certain traffic infractions to be ignored.[8] I’ve observed a similar process in Mexico, India, and other emerging markets, and it was a common practice in the Dominican Republic.[9] Serpico points out to his biographer and in his testimony to the Knapp Commission that Police Officers in New York City were paid to little to actually live in New York City.[10] This is also what happens in many other countries not terribly concerned with corruption; law enforcement is intentionally underpaid so that they almost have to take bribes in order to survive. Corruption is then something that isn’t ever really investigated, and wealthy and powerful people receive the satisfaction of being exempt from some a society’s laws and regulations (this principle often extends to many low level government officials). This is a system that obviously has the potential to be very unstable, when some insane policy such as the war on drugs or prohibition provides ample sums of cash from dangerous criminal organizations, police may no longer have as many qualms about only taking minor bribes to look the other way on relatively minor offences. This has happened in the United States, and was one of the factors in the push to raise law enforcement pay. In source or transit nations for drugs such as cocaine or heroin it has wreaked utter havoc. Columbia and Mexico, to use two examples, have seen multiple instances of where it is clear the police (or military) work for neither the patrician class or the government, but rather, international drug smuggling organizations. India found this type of bribery system breeds ineptitude and creates police who cannot protect anyone from threats such as Islamic Terrorism.[11]

The breaking of social norms by people who can get away with it does not just extend to traffic offenses. Aficionados will probably want to disagree, but if we’re honest the main appeal of Cuban Cigars through the embargo was that we weren’t supposed to have them. In popular film and television shows the offering of a Cuban Cigar became a cliché badge of status, and the phenomena we’re discussing is the reason why. One would not expect a street level crack dealer to also have access to Cuban Cigars, but a wealthy businessman, well, of course. My fellow Southrons will probably wish to see me tarred and feathered for pointing out the following, but this explains the rise in moonshine smuggling in the United States. Once the purview of those trying to avoid paying onerous taxes a liquor or avoid national or local prohibition, moonshiners have seen a resurgence in recent years, including the smuggling of “specialty” white lightning.[12] White lightning is, however, just awful whiskey. It is white because it isn’t aged in oak barrels, a process that is, at least in part, designed to improve the flavor. Rich Northerners are not paying top dollar for un-aged corn liquor that was distilled in God-knows-what, smuggled in plastic jugs, potentially laced with a cornucopia of dangerous chemicals and of such a high proof that one has to fight to hold it down because it tastes good. They are doing it precisely because they are not supposed to, and rot gut whiskey, ironically, has become a prestige good. It is much like calling what is really just fish bait “caviar” and charging top dollar for it. The wealthy are signaling their ability to summon such useless items to their peers and thus demonstrating their power. Cuban Cigars, moonshine, stolen Native American artifacts, and ivory all signal that the owner of these items can not only afford to possess something completely useless to them that is expensive, but that they have the ability to circumnavigate the rule of law, thus signaling that they are at the top of the social hierarchy, or at least above the enforcement mechanisms (i.e., the police). The problem arises when social systems begin to have ever shifting social mores and the halls of power are occupied by ever increasing numbers of people with the need to signal their status through activity rather than through legacy construction.

No matter how one feels about it, our society has experienced a radical shift in its value structure the last few decades, and that shift has begun to increase exponentially. Homosexuality, single parentage, divorce, pre-marital and casual sex, lack of religion, drug use and host of other activities that would have once placed one on the outside of acceptable society are now not only commonplace, they aren’t even political career enders. When Bill Clinton initially ran for President in 1992 he made what was, at the time, an Earth shattering admission; that when young he had once tried marijuana. Even in this instance, however, he included the preposterous caveat that he did not inhale. The politically wily Bill knew that the claim of not inhaling would allow him to seem human enough that he tried marijuana (like a lot of Americans) while maintaining some respectability in the sense that he was not tainted by actually consuming it. This is, obviously, an absurd claim, but it was just enough for the electorate. Even with that measure of plausible denial, Clinton barely won the election in 1992, and probably would not have had it not been for the candidacy of Ross Perot, though Clinton’s marijuana admission was by no means the only issue with his campaign. Fast forward sixteen years and Barak Obama was already on record in his autobiography as having smoked marijuana frequently and doing “a little blow,”[13] which is a phrase someone who used more than a little blow would probably employ. This did not stop him from being elected to the Presidency twice. Think of the major shift in value structure this represents in a relatively short period of time. Bill Clinton’s revelation was Earth shattering, and did not come until he was already running for President. To my knowledge, he never mentioned using marijuana when he ran for attorney general or governor of Arkansas. He already had established a political record (and base) at the time he admitted to using an illicit substance that many Americans have, and even with a stronger foothold in the realm of politics he felt the need to make up an implausible mitigating factor to ease the minds of voters. Sixteen years later Barak Obama was able to admit to be a habitual user of the same substance, and his unusual caveat was not for marijuana, but rather cocaine, a drug known to be addictive and dangerous and even viewed as such in the minds of many people who have no qualms about marijuana use. Obama made this admission in print in 1995, before he even went into politics, and it certainly was not seen as a hinderance by him and those that sponsored his meteoric rise.

What happened? A radical shift in acceptable values for those who are in the public sphere is the obvious explanation. Examining the causes of this shift is not the purpose of this article, only to point out that it did happen, and that the shift is responsible for a whole host of secondary effects. One of these, is that powerful people need to push the envelope further and further in order to achieve the same level of prestige rule breaking to assert their dominance. Personal politics aside, can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton seriously considering a run for President after associating with a literal Satanist (Marina Abramovic) and having that fact become public?[14] Why would Hillary do that at all if there was a potential risk to her political career? The answer is because there was a potential risk to her political career. She did that to prove that she could get away with it. Mrs. Clinton, no matter what one thinks of her, is not someone who hawks an image of edginess or hipness, though her husband certainly did. Bill graduated from keeping a stable of adult prostitutes as governor of Arkansas to flying around the world with a convicted pedophile sex trafficker as a former President. If we look at the time frame of what was acceptable at the time in the United States it is easy to see why. The Clinton’s along with their consort Jeffrey Epstein, are served by a need to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Pedophilia is the ultimate taboo, and for people of their ilk it represents the reason they seek power. Not so much because they have a predilection for the offence (though Bill Clinton likely fits the profile) but because they have a need to have their power demonstrated to them through overt violations of the legal code and social norms. If basket weaving was the ultimate taboo they’d be burning a pile of wicker smuggled to them from the Virgin Islands instead of their house on Long Island. Though Epstein’s vast connections were cultivated in large part to protect his operation, it is clear that trafficking in children for the purposes of sexual exploitation was highly profitable for him and gave him entre into a world that allowed him to become a billionaire without anyone being able to pin down exactly how. Though clearly an evil man because of the severe impact he had on his victims, as to his function in society, Jeffrey Epstein is no different than Heidi Fleiss. In 1993 and 1994 Fleiss’s adult prostitution ring in Hollywood was a big scandal. For years since her trial she’s been able to be in the public eye with a sort of semi-respectability.

Which is the important lesson in the revelation that many rich and powerful people are pedophiles and Satanists. Societies need boundaries, those boundaries may be tested, some may even be exceeded, yet if they’re taken away completely there will be those who will push and push with no end in sight. This is by no means to suggest that the actual members of Epstein’s or any other pedophile ring should not be hunted down to face justice. They absolutely should. Nor is this an attempt to serve as an apologia for those who availed themselves of his services. This article is merely an attempt to explain the forces at play that allow such depraved people to achieve power and wealth. There are plenty of rich and powerful people who signal their status by building great structures and putting their names on them, commissioning great works of art, or explore the stars. A society with an ever shifting moral grounding is likely to reward them less and allow their depraved counterparts to climb higher than they should. If the Western World does not get a handle on its constantly shifting morality, we will face the ever present threat of being ruled by those whose sole goal is power and the trappings that it provides.  

[1] Sayres, Melissa A. Wilson, Kirk E. Lohmueller, and Rasmus Nielsen. “Natural Selection Reduced Diversity on Human Y Chromosomes.” PLoS Genetics 10, no. 1 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004064.

Zeng, Tian Chen, Alan J. Aw, and Marcus W. Feldman. “Cultural Hitchhiking and Competition between Patrilineal Kin Groups Explain the Post-Neolithic Y-Chromosome Bottleneck.” Nature Communications 9, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04375-6.

[2] Diamond, Jared M. The Third Chimpanzee: the Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. London: Oneworld, 2014.

[3] Abrams, Elizabeth T., and Julienne N. Rutherford. “Framing Postpartum Hemorrhage as a Consequence of Human Placental Biology: An Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective.” American Anthropologist 113, no. 3 (2011): 417–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01351.x.

[4] Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History. Chelsea, MI: Scarborough House, 1992.

Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1979.

[5] Emsley, Clive, Tim Hitchcock, and Robert Shoemaker. “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” London History – A Population History of London – Central Criminal Court. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of-london.jsp.

[6] Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History. Chelsea, MI: Scarborough House, 1992.

[7] Mosko, Mark S. “Rethinking Trobriand Chieftainship.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1, no. 4 (1995): 763. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034960.

[8] Maas, Peter. Serpico: the Cop Who Defied the System. New York, NY: Viking, 1973.

[9] Horwitz, Tony. A Voyage Long and Strange: Rediscovering the New World. London: J. Murray, 2008.

[10] Maas, Peter. Serpico: the Cop Who Defied the System. New York, NY: Viking, 1973.

[11] Boo, Katherine. Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity. New York, NY: Random House, 2014.

[12] Kilborn, Peter T. “U.S. Cracks Down on Rise In Appalachia Moonshine.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 23, 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/23/us/us-cracks-down-on-rise-in-appalachia-moonshine.html.

Underworld, Inc. : Moonshine Mayhem. United States of America: Wall to Wall, 2015.

[13] Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance. New York, NY: Canongate, 2008.

[14] Podesta, John. “Fwd: Tickets to Official Campaign Launch on June 13th.” WikiLeaks, June 7, 2015. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/16498.