In another email, also sent in November 2012, she (Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit) asked Epstein whether it was "inappropriate" to suggest a picture of "two naked women with a surfboard" as a cell phone background for her then 15-year-old son. Epstein replied that the son should decide for himself, "the mother should stay out of it".
This is just an anecdote. And you know Trump is already mad because Norway didn't give him the Noble Peace Prize. What if he finds out the Crown Pricess is the rival for being Epstein's best friend.
I am really not sure about the answer to this question. Does the Epstein case tell us a lot about human nature or nothing? Is it only telling us about the elite and rich people or about people in general?
Many people in high society loved to spend time with Epstein and many knew that he was a groomer. Many people with a good reputation spent time with him. Does this imply we can never be sure about someone's real intentions and character no matter how principled this person seems? Are maybe the one's who pretend to be good people sometimes the worst. On the other hand, Trump, Steve Bannon and Michael Jackson always seemed to be a little off. I am not totally surprised that they are compromised.
One thing I really ask myself. Does this say a lot about the elites? Or does this say more about the rotten character of most average people? Does power really corrupt? Is there a causation between power, money, fame and questionable ethics and abusive behavior? Why are only some elites part of the Epstein class? Were they smart enough to know this will sooner or later come out? I mean people like Chomsky should have been able to anticipate that. Is this more the case there was an opportunity to visit this guy Epstein with the hope to get away with it. What was the motive? Were all of these people fascinated by abusing power? Or was it simply chic to spend time with him? I mean there are pictures of Bannon and Chomsky with Epstein. I mean the sympathy for groomers can seemingly bypass even the most heated political dividing line there ever were.
Is the story most men are monsters? And there are relatively speaking at least some women who willingly participate in child abuse. Why was Epstein so popular? Because child abuse is the most taboo thing that remains and people who have everything also want to cross that boundary? Or would the average Joe and Jane also participate in that if they had the chance? I am not sure whether that's solely an elite thing is. Some weeks ago I started listening to wifiskeleton. An artist who committed suicide. And it turned out he was a groomer. The most popular song Nope it's already too late I already died has a ridiculous line (the Nice line is pretty cool though).
Next day, I'm walkin' the road
Kickin' rocks, it's my fault
My life's the worst story told
I'll be this way 'til I'm old
I rip a page out the book
I'm just so misunderstood
I always think about her
And when my life felt good
This I am so misunderstood is such a lame excuse there are hard evidence for his misbehavior. In the moment of fame he chatted with minor fans and pressured them to send nudes and stuff like that. Though, after his death many people don't care anymore about the allegations. It gives me the feeling if people get the opportunity for abusing their power they will do it. And many people don't actually have power. Child abuse is often not only done by pedocriminals for sexual reasons it is also simply an act of feeling superior to someone who cannot defend him or herself.
People like Nick Fuentes even defend Epstein. It is his new edgy take. He claims Epstein wasn't even a pedophile because the victims were teenagers. (but still minors)
I think it is a too simply answer that only the elites were morally corrupt. There is a lot of child abuse happening even in ordinary families where you would not expect it. For me it shows rather problematic traits of many people. Under certain circumstances they act on them. Does this vice versa imply the people in power who don't abuse it were extremely virtuous? I don't think so. They probably abuse power in a less obvious way. Because honestly that this comes out eventually doesn't seem that unlikely.
On the other hand, if we say this behavior was simply contingent on external factors one would also absolve the criminals from their responsibility. This is why this cannot be the full and last conclusion.
What do you think? I am not entirely sure what to conclude...
