By Tim Hartnett
March 5, 2026
"Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them ? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility." Algernon Moncrieff
If you thought the "E"-word had reached the point of not only being considered poor form but absolutely anti-hip at top tiers of letters, A-14 of the 2-24 NYT says otherwise. It's headlined, "For Elites, Price of Admission to Epstein's World: Silence." Even if you go in for conspiracy theories plenty makes little sense in the Epstein story. None of the reports tell us that Epstein was a glib tongued Adonis that women and girls couldn't resist. The price he paid was cash. All the people being brought down by connection to him were loaded. Surely, they were adept at buying people. Why did they need Epstein for anything ? What was the attraction?
When you look over the record of his unscrupulous financial dealings in New York... where was the rumor mill ? There must have been scuttlebutt about with this much grift in his wake. Was the A-list turning a blind eye because they had pulled off or condoned similar rip-offs ? And what kept him in so many loops ? Does anybody say Jeffrey Epstein was especially intriguing company ? After all the words poured onto him, as a subject, does anyone who never met the man have a vague idea of what he was like in company ? Has he become so toxic, in death, that none of his many comrades are now willing to describe the man in any depth ? There must be a lot to hide.
You might wonder if mingling way up in the societal stratosphere is as "dull," as Sylvia Plath put it, "as the Triple tongues of dull, fat Cerebus Who wheezes at the gate" ? We've got at least one thing out of this, the little we know about the prince of Pedo-Isle scrapes a lot of the glitz and glam off of flying high with the beautiful people. They don't see bliss, in middle or advanced age, any different than they did as sophomores. But still can't understand why the peasantry has any reservations about them laying down the law.
I've often found interesting conversation proscribed in the high-brow clubbing scene. Café Milano in Georgetown is not just known for bland food. The double-air-kiss crowd is also as stuporific as a bottle of absinthe. It must get worse the further a social climber ascends. People, who call themselves "playas" when they are really renters, are insufferable gasbags to a man. How much narcissistic blather must be endured to maintain welcome in the flesh-pits where the crème de la creme commune ? If some intrepid infiltrator wore a wire to high-society soirees would the recordings score hits on YouTube ? Or, would the trite banality of it all fall flat?
Once you get beyond lurid details, what does this scandal tell us about the power structure ? Do people with the reins really have much edge on Joe Six-Pack ? Somebody with a bully pulpit needs to ask, at high decibels, what keeps the Western edifice of status and command from toppling ? Is the only sound part of it a foundation of competent serfs ? Major media, generally, takes it for granted that expertise and proficiency are in ample supply in our institutions. What are the facts supporting that confidence?
Who is satisfied with US foreign policy since the war ? The late Henry Kissinger is still regarded brilliant by numerous sources. Is there a single initiative of Dr. K's, other than possibly the Yom Kippur War, which can count as a success today ? Dulles, Rusk, Albright, Clinton... where is the diplomatic example of worthwhile accomplishment?
The US Secret Service, supposedly, assembles the world's ace bodyguards. They were un-cleverly outwitted by a 20-year-old, who looked like a 13-year-old, whose stratagem was placing a ladder against a warehouse. Wounding 3 and killing one, Thomas Crooks came within an inch or two of an ex-president's life. Bookie's looking at this precedent would have to give a journeyman killer, with a few notches on his gun, great odds on pulling off the whacking and getting away clean.
The Feds are clamming up much the way they did over Lee Harvey Oswald. The alphabet soup crowd is always whining about conspiracy theories. They refuse to face the facts. Their own tradition of bureaucratic omerta is why kooks fill in the blanks with wild speculation. Do the Feds have any other choice ? A code of silence is too necessary to abandon. How else can they cover a long trail of trips over their own feet?
Epstein, you would think, had no role in foreign relations or security arrangements but he stayed close to many people who did. The same is true for those reigning in academia, entertainment and high finance. The meritocracy couldn't seem to get enough of him. What made him such a cool cat with the glitterati ? It's probably something else that falls under the rubric of "national security" - which, translated into plebe-speak, usually means executive suite insecurity. What else explains keeping the lid on the Epstein photo album for going on seven years?
When you examine daily life, what works and is reliable and what fails ? The pipes maintain the flow, ducts heat and cool, truckers keep shelves well stocked, our buildings are largely intact and basics rarely falter. Almost all the failure comes from above. The high-priesthood at State entangles us unnecessarily in foreign travails, the academy turns out dolts, courts put psychos back in circulation, Silicon Valley pestilently infects our communication devices, listed corporations squander billions on lead balloons, Hollywood mass produces schlock, grift and graft oozes everywhere and "leadership" follows circuitous routes to destinations unknown... and best avoided.
What calamity would it take for our faithful "unfake news" informers to be sick of the whole charade ? The emperor has been clad in knock-offs since raccoon coats were in. Major mediacrats can't seem to resist the same fashion trends.
The newsocracy has reaped reams of copy out of the Epstein scandal - but are they coming anywhere near to getting the point ? Epstein is a symptom of affliction that goes far beyond the corruption and molestation of adolescents. When you look at the ills plaguing us today, how many have "elite" origins?
The abuse of illicit drugs moved from bohemian, artistic circles and on to places like Harvard, Berkeley and UCLA well before the dreaded masses joined in. The craze quickly erupted into hordes of lost waifs homelessly littering neighborhoods like Haight-Ashbury. Charles Manson emerged from the human wreckage a new age messiah. He preached an anti-establishment gospel. It was psychotically pieced together out of a lysergically enlightened interpretation of sounds he heard coming from established academia. Nobody can be certain, with what's been released as yet, that some government skullduggery wasn't involved.
It's less a matter of "conspiracy" than smugocracy. People who ran with Jeff had convinced themselves they knew the score better than pitiful little you ever could. When they serve up stuff like the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the Afghan defeat, Covid-19, rampant bilks of government programs, crumbling infrastructure, diminishing buying power and tidal surges of debt, can any shred of responsibility be placed on the guys who repair leaking roofs or put your car back on the road?
Behind all this self-servitude and incompetence stands the high academy that has adopted the parasitical whimsy of Wall Street. The pedagogical nobility gets down and parties in the kind of same glorified discos as the Epsteinophiles; if not the very same ones. The media-ocracy doesn't pay much attention. They prefer the pretense that all is pristine in the Ivory Tower, it's even evident in the Times article cited above.
With customary cluelessness Lisa Miller of the Times clues readers out citing Dutch social psychologist Gerben van Kleef:
"Von Kleef hypothesized that social groups cede power to transgressors only when the transgression benefits them. In his experiments, he found that a man who helps himself uninvited to a stranger's coffee thermos amasses power when he shares the coffee with others. If he steals the coffee and keeps it for himself, he does not. Scientists cannot study harmful norm violations such as sexual aggression, Van Kleef wrote."
"[C]offee," really ? This sounds like an insight from a wannabe prodigy in junior high. While, no angel myself, I can't recall a similar experience in my lifetime. Other than joking around with intimate friends - and even weird then, stealing other people's food and drink is beneath most thieves. Openly trying to share such loot would render the crook a risible pariah in any circle above a hobo camp... and probably there as well. When I cited this inane passage to a faithful NYT reader, she said "Well, it's only an example." Yes, an incredibly lame one. Isn't "social psychology" tainted well enough as it is ? Resorting to such a silly illustration evinces absolute ineptitude examining human interaction. Nothing of material value could have been gleaned from Van Kleef's study. The man is an indisputable boob. Now, how much did his "academic" venture cost?
There's a whole industry of people looking down on the human race from perches like Van Kleef's. They absorb society's largesse to preach misanthropy. A healthy fraction of them were not above consorting with Epstein. Stereotypes of snooty toffs jet-setting around with condescending contempt for the public they pretend to serve are too generous. High-brow hobnobbery has metastasized to potentially terminal malignity.
Klemens Von Metternich said this of the man he faced off with in Vienna in 1814:
"Such men as M. de Talleyrand are like sharp-edged instruments with which it is dangerous to play. But for great evils drastic remedies are necessary and whoever has to treat them should not be afraid to use the instrument which cuts the best."
The Bishop of Autun was of an age with competent aristocrats. What we need now is a guy who wields a metaphorical blade as deftly as they did in denim and flannel, driving a pick-up truck.