The Philosophy of Jeffrey Epstein // 240

Jeffrey Epstein is not primarily known as a philosopher, but his emails illustrate that he had higher ambitions than pedophilia. We explore both the latent and manifest content of Jeffrey Epstein's theorizing, as well as who enabled him, and come to realize that he was the victim of a rare psychotic illness. 

Join our patreon to get the epsidoes not posted here https://www.patreon.com/plasticpills

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
I'm on the mic.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Well, well, well.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
Everyone's asking me about Chompsky. I didn't look into Chomsky,
but I think Eric did, so we'll get to Chompsky.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yeah, Chompsky.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
I would like it on the record that you can
go back two hundred and thirty nine episodes and I've
never said a single positive thing about no Chomsky.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah, have we even really talked about him? Like I
think he has some good analysis, Like I think I
think he's like written optly but like criticizing capitalism.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
Yeah, we have not had an extended discussion. I've mentioned
he is a fan of Charles Purse.

Speaker 4 (00:42):
I think that's about it.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
He's important in like philosophy of language, but like for
the bad views.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
I think his generative grammar.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
Eric, I didn't tell you this in the chat, but
I hate to break it to you. Charles Sanders Purse
is in the Epsteine.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
Five else Oh that.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Was he emailing Epstein.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
He did not email Epstein, And I don't think he
went to the island either, and the island probably when
he died, probably still belonged to Denmark. But No Purse
appears in the Epstein files in the context of a physicist,
I presume, a real physicist trying very patiently to explain

(01:28):
to Epstein why his theory of conscious observation is just bullshit.
But he's doing so very patiently. And one of the
examples he brings up is Perse and how Perse describes
what Epstein is trying to describe, but much better and

(01:49):
one one hundred and fifty years prior.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
There are certain people that I've noticed on Twitter, like
who like on the left who have kind of had
a ill jubilation like about Chomsky being in the Epstein files,
and they're kind of like, yes, finally I have like
a reason to hate him or whatever. And I don't know,
I just find it like like if you you either

(02:13):
like the guy's ideas or you don't and like his
personal life, it's like because he made bad decisions about
who to be friends with, I guess to me, like
doesn't impact I've never been like a huge Chomsky person,
Like like I said, I think he has like some
fine views. But it's just like funny to watch people
who like have always kind of had this intuitive hatred
for him because maybe he's like insufficiently left enough or

(02:37):
whatever for uncertain things, and they're just like yes, finally,
like and I'm just like who like who cares, Like
I don't know he made bad friends, like that doesn't
impact his like the quality of his views or he
you know, he had poor judgment when it came to friends.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Being friends with Epstein does not affect his already paltry
and way overrated contributions to the philosophy of language.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
Yeah, exactly, like whether you liked him or you thought
they were simple, like I guess to me, like nothing's changed,
Like I don't know, he hasn't like there's no evidence
that he like participated. He just knew shit and was
like I don't was like, I'm gonna still keep being
friends with this rich guy, Like that's stupid. But it
doesn't impact like anything about his views.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
I think he he sits firmly to the left of
like the of like what passes for mainstream left, but
he doesn't delier stuff with like the frenetic like energy
of Jijak. But he does say the right thing, like
I agree with things he says. He's just like do
you want to know about foreign influenced and look at
the influence of Israel on the stage. It's like, Okay,

(03:41):
speed it up a bit, Chomsky, But.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
Yeah, yeah, unbelievably unbelievably boring talker, unbelievably boring and slow
talker like like like like maximum stereotype of like slow
boring like academic, like a non academic. If they pictured
like a boring academic in the way they talk, it
would be the way Chomsky talks. He's the documentary A

(04:04):
Requiem for the American Dream that was on Netflix a
few years ago. That was pretty good. That was like
a good analysis of like of like capitalism. So he says,
good stuff.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
But yeah, did we not talk about the Chomsky Fucot debates.

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Oh, maybe we did it way back.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
Possibly what also just started the hatred because he's like, all,
Yo is an immoralist, and like all the continental theorists
are like, and you know that Lacan guy, he's a
charlatan like Chomsky's famous.

Speaker 4 (04:32):
Or say, oh, yeah, he gets a bad.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Rap for people who get like thrown into that stuff
in their early twenties. And then they're like, oh, well
this guy doesn't like these things that I like, and
then they hate Chomsky. But like otherwise, I don't know,
he's fine. I guess that stuff that the emails are
enraging to read like him giving like Epstein public relations
advice in like twenty eighteen.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah that's not so good, a bit.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
Late to be looking good doing that, but like otherwise,
you know, okay, fine, yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
You know. Relative to the other we'll call them writers,
the other authors found in the Epstein files. Though Chomsky
comes off like a.

Speaker 5 (05:12):
Genius, why do you say that, because the writing style
is comprehensible, maintains a through line of a thesis from
the beginning to the end of the paragraph.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
My number one lesson that I have I have gleaned
from reading the Epstein files is that we need to
deep We need to deport Deepak Chopra immediately because with
the Epstein files, many are going to be focused on
who who enabled the pedophilia, who enabled the child trafficking,

(05:46):
And that's important obviously, but no one's going to be
No one's going to be focusing on what enabled Jeffrey
Epstein to style himself as a sort of intellectual or
patron of the arts, or even a philosopher. As we'll see,
he was developing a sort of philosophy I'm going to
put in the school of panpsychism. But this cloying sycophant,

(06:12):
Deepak Chopra is largely responsible for filling Jeffrey Epstein with
the with the idea that he's in fact brilliant, because
Deepak Chopra says, sir, you are you're you're brilliant, and
it's because no one understands you. That's why they're rejecting
your ideas out of hand. Oh yeah, I actually own Sorry,

(06:33):
I wanted to add this. I own a book of
Deepak Chopras because it was like ten or fifteen years ago.
I was watching some of this new thought shit like
quantum physics affects your affects your your reality if you
choose to let it stuff, and I thought this was hilarious.
So I was gonna undertake to write, alongside my academic work,

(06:58):
a parody self help book. So I went to BMV
and I bought a few of these self help books
and one of them is called The Secret by Dpac Chopra.
And of the books that I bought, there were three
of them. The other two were kind of funny. Then
I read Depac Choprahs and this was I read half
of it, and I gave up on my parody project.

(07:22):
Because it was so fucking stupid, It was beyond fucking
stupid in a way that there would actually be no
way to parody it, because it would it's impossible to
make it stupider than it already is. And this guy
has written eighty eighty books.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
Yeah, he strikes me as one of those writers who
people just love and it's like this, it's frustrating to
talk to people who love it. He reminds me of that,
like Uvil Noah Harari, guy who wrote Sapiens. Like people like, oh,
I love him his book. That's Sapien's books so good, right,
like you just don't know how.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
To I mean, he's better than Depropra. But yeah, I agree.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
Deepak Chropra.

Speaker 3 (08:07):
A sentence, okay, this is this is fifteen years past.
But a sentence is something like a secret is the
key in the keys are the secrets, the secret in
the keys combined to make the universe the universe. There
are holes in the holes you place the keys. The
keys are the words, and it's just it's this for

(08:30):
for eighty pages.

Speaker 4 (08:31):
Okay, that's bad.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
Yeah, And we see we see him feature prominently in
the Epstein Files as an encourager as someone for for
Jeff to bounce ideas off of. For example, he gives
he gives Jeffrey Epstein the advice in an email that says,
the tiger is always hungry, and you know he's He's Indian,

(08:54):
so it sounds like some some oriental oriental wisdom is
always hungry. But this that I that I tried to
backsearch where it actually came from, and it comes in
response to one of Jeff's emails. And Jeff's email reads,
Woody told me that you have your own wild publicity
problem with alleged hooker blackmail. I told him I never

(09:19):
heard of it. It appears we had each been bitten
by the tiger.

Speaker 4 (09:22):
But not eaten.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
And this is where Confucius say the tiger is always hungry.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
I'm guessing that's Woody Allen.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, everyone's just everyone's getting blackmailed by hookers.

Speaker 4 (09:35):
Why why? Why does this keep happening.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
I'm seeing, Oh, I'm seeing another one of Chopra's quotes
coming out of the I think it's the latest release.
God is a construct.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
Cute girls are real.

Speaker 1 (09:46):
That's another. That's another that's more of a behind the scenes. Uh,
we're not where we're supposed to read all this stuff.

Speaker 4 (09:54):
Presumably that's profound incredible.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
Some of the deep Ori until wisdom that they're known
for God is a construct, but young girls are real.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
You could tell a lot about about these manisphere types
from the quality of their like degradation of women when
they think nobody's looking.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
Well, that wouldn't affect the manosphere people so much. But
deepatched Hoprah is more in the style of I'm going
to sell I'm going to sell meditation classes to celebrities
for eight thousand dollars an hour.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
He's created by Oprah.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
Well, he goes full he goes full on like that.
And apparently with these exchanges with Epstein, I mean, I
guess everyone who's emailing each other in these Epstein files
are are assuming that nobody's ever going to see any
of this stuff. It's good on Chomsky again that he
was saying, like this stuff is silly. When Epstein starts

(10:51):
going on about eugenics to him.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
He does say that.

Speaker 1 (10:57):
He's said, well, he says, he shuts down, says that's impossible. Yeah, right, yeah,
he doesn't.

Speaker 3 (11:06):
I think this is a through line including Chomsky. But
all these physicists and Chomsky none of them say no,
you're wrong or no, don't do that. It's more like
gentle nudging, like well maybe maybe eugenics, Jeff, maybe there's
less evidence for that than we'd like, you know.

Speaker 1 (11:26):
They indulge him a bit. But yeah, what were you
gonna say?

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Well, I was just gonna say. I think like that's
a good example though, where they're private emails, and I
think like I try, I try to have like a
little bit of like empathy and understanding that if you
if you've developed a relationship with somebody that is like
somewhat close, that has involved conversations, private conversations, that it

(11:52):
would be like difficult, it would be challenging, especially if
they're like rich and have a lot of resources and
a lot of money, and you're kind of like, oh,
I'm in with this billion, you know, and I've also
developed some kind of a connection with him. I'm not
saying I'm still think like Chomsky should have known better
or whoever else should have known better, like especially in
twenty nineteen or whatever, when these you know, revelations were clear.

(12:15):
But I also feel like it's important to have like
a little bit of understanding that it would be a
bit challenging, like you're sending private emails, you're still like
maintaining contact with somebody. Uh, yeah, it wouild. It's just
like it's a bit it's just easy, I guess to
on the sidelines be like you should have cut off
contact with this person like immediately, And I think it's
like a bit harder if it's someone you've known for

(12:38):
a long time. I've had history, have had had history
with uh. I mean, on the other hand, like you know,
if it really was if this was if Chomsky really
was giving him advice, which it seems like he was
of just like things, Yeah he was explicitly like I
think I was just actually looking at the email. I

(12:58):
think he should know better. Although it's also worth noting
that that Chomsky has a reputation for replying to like
every email he gets, even from people he's not friends with, right,
even from people he's not like engaging with. So I
don't know if if you guys know what the context
of this advice is, if if Epstein like asked him
directly or like what led up to it. I didn't

(13:21):
have time to look at that, but I guess just
like putting it all in like the broader context.

Speaker 4 (13:25):
It's still bad.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
It's like, don't don't misunderstand me. It's still like shows
poor judgment. But I still think like it's worth having
like a little bit of understanding for like how difficult
it would be to just totally like then everybody can
act with like the best moral judgment in every situation
with someone that they like have some kind of emotional

(13:48):
relationship with, not to mention the kind of weird aura
that like a rich billionaire might have if you're friends
with them, that you're just like, oh, I want to
stay in this person's good graces.

Speaker 3 (13:57):
You know, there are so many cases is of you know,
pseudo intellectuals, but also like real physicists that are trying
to get money for their like their their little product. Yeah,
and I mean honestly as as academics. Let me say,

(14:18):
let me say, the incentives are to turn the other way.
If some very rich guy who's kind of dumb is like, hey,
I'm gonna give you like two hundred thousand dollars, and
I'm every once in a while going to send you
an email being like, what do you think if there's
faster than light particles that like actually exist in the
brain and that's and that's actually what consciousness is made of.

(14:41):
And you go, Okay, this is a real example. By
the way, You're like Okay, yeah, Jeff, that's that's kind
of not possible. But like, I like, I like that,
you're I like that you're thinking about this.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
It's creative, creative think.

Speaker 3 (14:53):
And then you google him you find out he has
criminal charges. But you know, there's the two hundred thousand
dollars right there, Like, all right, is everyone.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
And no one's gonna see this anyway?

Speaker 4 (15:03):
Is it certain? I ask?

Speaker 3 (15:05):
Is it certain that everyone is able to sit in
moral judgment after the fact? Would have been like, no,
he offered me two hundred thousand dollars, but there were
charges against him, So I said, no, I'm not gonna
I'm not gonna ask.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
Like I'm on the job market now my.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
Post indulge him as the temptation.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
My postdoc is about to end. I have like nothing
set up like for next year. I'm like trying to
figure that out right now. And like, yeah, if I
was in that situation, like some billionaire was just like
I think your ideas are cool. You're like a smart,
interesting guy. Maybe I can fund you, Like another postdoc
next year. That'd be so hard for me to just
be like, nah, buddy, like I am gonna take the
moral high ground because there are accusations against you.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
Like here's a free plane ride to all the UN
meetings for the next year. It's like, yeah, oh, okay, Yeah,
I'm gonna indulge this crazy shit you're saying for a
little while.

Speaker 4 (15:55):
Then yeah.

Speaker 3 (15:56):
So there's a roster of people like this, some implicated
more than others. But I wanted to give I wanted
to give you guys a sort of picture of what
they're sending and what kind of people these are. So
a lot of the people that he reaches out to
seem to be like neurologists or physicists, and some of

(16:16):
them are really well known, but a lot of them aren't.
So it's basically like he has an email list of
I would say it sounds like sort of grad students
or something like that, or researchers, like researchers, not celebrities,
not celebrity physicists. Yeah, and he sends them emails are
basically asking for pitches like Hey, I want some fun ideas.

(16:38):
What can you guys come up with? And presumably you know,
if he likes your idea, then it gets you funded.
But these are these are really not just like strictly
speaking academics, but they're like calls for papers, like, hey,
I need I need to fund something to make me
feel smart. So here's some ideas that came back from
one of his pitches. Number one a series of workshops

(17:01):
focusing on neglected knowledge such as Russian psychopharmacology, Thai architecture,
Buddhist psychology, Chinese opinion.

Speaker 4 (17:10):
Control, et cetera. So a workshop.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
Series two a psychedelic retreat for a group of select individuals,
with the explicit goal to create a tightly knit but
disentrenched group of individuals capable of radically rethinking and influencing
global affairs. So presumably the one who's pitching this wants

(17:33):
to be in on that group, of course. Number three
a news agency specifically designed to amplify signal in the
noise and to eliminate opinion bias as far as possible. Okay,
and god, this is so embarrassing, Like the ends of
these emails are just like full of exclamation points the
reek of desperation, like you know, when you're trying to

(17:57):
you know, and you're trying to date a girl and
she imediately text you back every time you ask her
to hang out, and it's like, oh, now, relax, all
of these people are like this. Now there's one who's
more implicated, someone who knows more of what's going on.
And I looked her up. Her name is Michelle Riley.

(18:17):
Apparently she's still some sort of in some sort of
think group at MIT, but her profile says Michelle Riley
is a scientist, an artist, and a systems thinker whose
work resists easy classification. And of course that's code for
she's a bullshit artist. Ha ha okay, And she pitches Epstein

(18:38):
on quote, what about a new Rosicrucianism of sorts? A
Jejune Institute styled Blurred Blurred reality fiction Negging of your
enemies would be pretty damn fun. So she's basically saying, Hey, Jeffrey,
why don't we start a cult and I'll be in it.
Back to quoting what are your thoughts on funding and

(18:59):
constructing your own intelligence agency? So she's really trying to
get in here, desperate to be on the inside of
something with this with this guy, and then this is
this is the final sentence quote, Like any decent trader,
you should estimate various time lags regime changes to seek
relevant trends. High profile island orgies also independently come to mind.

(19:24):
But I have a strong suspicion that you may already
have that covered.

Speaker 4 (19:30):
Okay, that's bad.

Speaker 3 (19:32):
Yeah, yeah, so funny, right, And then she signs off,
I wanted to include this because it just shows how
these people reek. She signs off fraternal regards from one
Coney Island baby to another exclamation point.

Speaker 4 (19:46):
Exclamation point like, holy.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
Shit, have some self respect, these fucking stink Yeah.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
And then Epstein does present himself like the philanthropy like
ideas hyper guy too, because in that you said to
something of an exchange of his with Chomsky, and he's
like like top five hardest linguist questions, like he wanted
to do. He wanted Chomsky to basically do like the
goodwill hunting thing and like come up with like the

(20:14):
top five hardest questions because again, like Epstein's obsession with intelligence,
he wants to find like the smartest people. So he's
like he like offers himself to as a funder for
these sorts of things, and he's going to find the
smartest people in your field. Like I read I read
an interview he did with like a what was it

(20:36):
with a science magazine. He he was like, wants to
find all the brightest mathematicians. Like he's always doing that.
He's always presenting himself as this guy who's going to
fund these competitions find all the most intelligent people in
that field, and like this is your field, whoever he's

(20:57):
emailing and like, what do you think of this? He
wants to do the five linguistic questions to Chomsky, and
Chomsky's like, well, I'm not David Hilbert. I can't I
can't think of anything like that.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
I have a little pedantic point that is like and
the only reason I'm raising it is almost to make
a meta comment about the nature of the point that
I'm gonna make, because I've heard it come up a
couple times and then people getting dunked on for making it.
But as like kind of someone with you know, autistic

(21:30):
adjacent like fixation on terminological accuracy. You know, the word
pedophilia no technically means yeah, Well it's just funny to
me because everybody's saying like he's a pedophile, But like medically,
to be a pedophile, you have to be interested in
pre pubescent children. Okay, there's actually another term.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
Why this matters if it's just fourteen or ten.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
On calling Jeffrey Epstein a pedophilele is the moral condemnation
with that word is accurate to what I've heard he's done.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
I agree with that. I agree with that. I actually think,
I actually think it's less a legal question more medical
question because legally there is no distinction between like pedophile,
it's just underage. The legal category is just underage. There's
no talk of pedophile or not.

Speaker 3 (22:26):
Like it's not illegal to date an eighteen year old.
But if you are, you have there's something, there's something
wrong with you.

Speaker 2 (22:32):
No, but even but even when you're doing something wrong.
Like my understanding that in legally the word pedophilia is
like never used. It's always just about like underage or minor.

Speaker 3 (22:43):
My definition of pedophile, and I think everyone should adopt
it is if you're over thirty and you have to
check the age of consent.

Speaker 2 (22:50):
Well just for just for public literacy, like like medically,
like it what it is, right, that's all.

Speaker 1 (22:56):
Well, we all know that the greatest defense of pedophilia
is also a book that Jeffrey Epstein was interested in
that is Nibolkov's Lolita, which which which makes the argument
that all of our literary heroes were basically pedophiles, including
I think I think it was Edgar Allan Poe was

(23:18):
one of the big examples.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
Or Justin Trudeau's dad when when he started dating his mom,
she was like he met her in a pool and
she was like sixteen or seventeen, and he was like forty.

Speaker 3 (23:29):
I mean, oh, I can't picture I can't picture it.
Like what would you what would you get out of
that relationship with someone who's like.

Speaker 4 (23:37):
Can we go? Can we go to the mall to
get lollipops?

Speaker 2 (23:41):
I know, I find it. I find it. I find
it totally baffling.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
Yeah, I find it is it's disturbing. And I'm in
Poe's case it was like a cousin too, so there's
like an incest element.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
Oh you know, oh you know who else? You know
who else? Also Kormick McCarthy, the the writer of like
No Country for All the Novels, among others. He had
a very extended.

Speaker 4 (24:06):
Relationship Blood Meridian.

Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah, he had an extended relationship, like over decades with
someone that he met when she was sixteen.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
Bro.

Speaker 3 (24:16):
Yeah, we teach like nineteen or twenty year old, which
is quite a bit older than sixteen. I don't know
how you can even stand voluntarily to be in a
room with someone that age where you have to have
like a conversation.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
Is if you if you went through the history books,
were like, like, give me a list of like my
literary heroes and artists and people from like before basically
before the year nineteen hundred who were interested in women.
That would be just absolutely unconscionable. Today the list would

(24:50):
be pretty shocking and long and probably include loads of
people that we don't want to know that about.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
Your faves are going to be implicated. You know, a
lot of those French guys, a lot of our French guys.
They signed on a petition to lower the age of consent.
That seems pretty unjustifiable.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
I guess it seems to me that the things that
make Epstein's allegations and the things that he was also
convicted of being so bad is the kind of power
dynamic in the way that he would traffic and bring
put women into situations where they were coerced. Young women
obviously or in some cases verging on children. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
I was trying to read.

Speaker 3 (25:33):
I was trying to not read any of that in
the Epstein emails, but I found one, and it's very disturbed.
It's like, Hey, send me these pictures. Send me these pictures.
And she's like, well, I'm not sure if I want
to send you. I'm not going to describe it, but
I'm not sure I want to send you pictures of that.
And then he's like, oh, I thought you were sorry,
little Fredi and call less you throw up. But then

(25:56):
he's like, oh, well, I was going to offer you
a plane ticket to New York and give you an apartment,
but I guess you're not interested.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
So yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (26:05):
So it's really it's really it's really predatorial.

Speaker 2 (26:07):
Course, yeah exactly, it's super coercive and predatory. Setting aside
whatever like the term like pedophile or not. It's like,
I don't know, I guess, I guess. Like the way
that I was maybe thinking about it is it's sort
of like when people want to say that Trump is
a fascist, which increasingly I would say the case is
getting stronger that he is, But there was a time

(26:28):
when I would say the case was not as clear,
and I remember my argument would always be look like
me saying he's not a fascist is It's just let's
just be accurate about why the bad things he's doing
are actually horrible, right, And like you don't need the term,
you don't need you don't need that scary word to
make the case. Okay that like the things he's doing
are horrible, And I guess maybe that's sort of the

(26:48):
way that I feel about this.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
But still meh, Like, if we're gonna do the metaphysics
of pedophile, there is a medical definition maybe, but the
socially effective definition, which is basically who deserves to be
ostracized if not imprisoned, then like and a FEBA file
is a pedophile. If you're going to sleep with a
fourteen year old as an adult, you're a pedophile because

(27:12):
a fourteen year old is a child, and that may
be culturally relative, but I don't think there's any debate
to be had about that here.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
Like I'm looking again at his this is like sort
of off the pedophilia topic, going back to the his
like obsession with intelligence no DNA and seating like in oh,
it's in one email to someone named Jabb or why.
Epstein wrote, quote looking forward to your DNA test to

(27:43):
see how many genes we share? Like what the hell?
Epstein said? He has quote two recessive genes that cause
hyper fucking and Epstein wants to emailing somebody about IQ
test for children, suggesting because he wants to like groom

(28:05):
them for his for his strange and musk like seeding project.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
What is it with billionaires? A They just it's like
they they get to a certain point. I don't know.
Do you think it's like they need an explanation for why,
like they succeeded, like they must have good like instead
of it being ordained by God, it's like ordained by genes.
It's like, well I have so like there must be
some gene in me that I pass on. I don't know,

(28:36):
there's something interesting there, Like I feel like Peter Teele
was sort of interested. I don't know Peter Teele was
as interested in eugenics, but Elon Musk definitely seems to be.

Speaker 3 (28:46):
Yeah, they're all adjacent to it. Part of it is
that it's like not allowed. I think, like let's push,
let's use our money to push where science is not
allowed to go because we're scientists. But yeah, there's something,
there's something about their own self myth that they come
to believe, like because they're a billionaire, even though it's

(29:07):
like some other guy's money that you blackmailed him out of.

Speaker 4 (29:10):
No, you deserve to be a billionaire.

Speaker 3 (29:12):
But you see this sort of elitism in a way
that I found completely impossible to empathize with.

Speaker 4 (29:19):
And this happened.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
This was repeated repeatedly, like a guy gets me too
basically or canceled for trying to fuck his grad students
or whatever, and then Jeff will talk to another person
about this guy, and his wording is something like, oh,
the mob got to him, Like a guy's accused of

(29:43):
sexually assaulting or trying to molest his grad students, and
he goes, oh, well, the pitchforks are out something like that.
So every single time there's like a predatory, a predatory
person that faces the consequences for being predatory, then it's like, oh,
the woke mob. And he didn't say woke because it

(30:05):
was like twenty eleven. But even with Chompsky, Chompsky's way
of phrasing him helping Epstein is saying, oh, well, this
is just this is how the rabble are well.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
He talks about the hysteria, the hysteria around like women's
rights or hysteria.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
We have to learn how to manage these rabble. And
that's one of the things that I found, like it
seemed like there's a rapport between this class of people
that I don't think that way because I don't have
a billion dollars or I'm not a cultural elite in
that way, but they they seem to speak the same
language on that level of like how to keep things

(30:44):
away from the bloodthirsty zombie hordes below them.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
And one of those strategies is clearly eugenics and an
interest in eugenics, and then another one. I mean, this
article points out that Epstein's interest in eugenics is similar
to Richard Dawkins. Dawkins does try to pass eugenics off

(31:11):
like it is just like artificial selection, basically like animal
husbandry just applied to humans, which which is really not
what eugenics is. Eugenics is like targeting, well, eugenics is
like fundamentally a racist science that targets populations for whatever,

(31:35):
like sterilization, preventing them from reproducing, like setting them apart
segregating them like, yeah, something like that. So Jeffrey Epstein
also had an interest in like race science and the
genetic basis for differences in intelligence, like straight up just

(31:56):
bringing like racial pseudoscience back into play.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Yeah, there's there's definitely a latent belief that they truly
believe in. I think all these guys that they are
different from the rest of people, and this would ethically
mandate them to do like whatever race iq science, eugenics
on the rest of us, because relative to them were

(32:24):
heard animals. And so by that logic, you know, if
you rape a fourteen year old, you're you're artificially inseminating
a sheep, not raping a fourteen year old because she's
she's not part of the group of real people. And
you see this if you go back to the pitches
that were sent to Epstein by these like academics, their idea,

(32:47):
when asked was to create some sort of secret society.

Speaker 4 (32:49):
One of them said, we should make.

Speaker 3 (32:51):
A new a new Rosicrucian group, and one is like, oh,
we should have our own private intelligence agency, and one's
like this this in group of intellectuals. So these are
all about making cults about the strivers who want to
be in this upper crust. And then what the upper
crusts do with their their money is make groups in

(33:13):
order to distinguish themselves from the rest of society because
they don't see themselves as as part of it. And
we can elaborate this into feels like his little feudal
states that are distinct from the rest of the country
all that stuff, Like at a certain point you just
detach in your mind from the rest of people. And
the irony of that is Like him and Musk especially,

(33:33):
they think they're super intelligent, but we we now have
like full on display their thought process and their borderline.
They're they're they're medically stupid. They believe in anything, they
believe in anything, they see anything you tell them.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
Well, I'm not surprised, Yeah, his interests, Like I'm surprised
phrenology isn't on here. It goes through telekinesis, clairvoyance, and telepathy.
Like he like basically rewinding the credulous clock back to
the nineteenth century, but with like twentieth century funding in science,
Like that's what, well, twenty first century, where the fuck

(34:09):
am I? Yeah wants to fund experiments on Yeah, Like
his contact with parasp psychologists and spoon benders and shit
like Epstein's interested in that stuff. Some guy, some guy
named Dean Radden, sent Epstein a picture of a spoon
that he claimed to have bent with his mind.

Speaker 3 (34:33):
Okay, I found I went through his Amazon history. I
said this to you guys already. The last book, second
last book he bought was Spinoza.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
Yeah, that's that's funny. I saw people tweeting about that.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
I don't think he read it because he got arrested
like a couple months later. There's a lot of references
to Plato, no surprise, a lot of references to Aristotle.

Speaker 4 (34:57):
Descartes got thirty two.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
The most references to any philosopher, though, is Seneca, and
he loves or, at least in twenty fourteen twenty thirteen timeframe,
he loved Seneca. Seneca's got a book called The Shortness
of Life that we referenced in an episode two, like
three episodes ago. But he recommends it to everybody. My

(35:22):
reporting is looking like he probably gave it to Bill Gates,
which is this is kind of fitting because the shortness
of Life. This is where Seneca is saying, like, you
can't spend too much time trying to get stuff. You
can't spend time on material, wealth or power, because if
you're wise, you'll realize that time is the most valuable

(35:44):
resource you have.

Speaker 4 (35:45):
Because you can ever get it back.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
So if you want your life to be long, even
though it's short in the scheme of things, if you
want your life to be long, you have to live
in the present. Now, how Jeffrey Epstein fits in fuck
teenagers into living in accordance with virtue, I'm not I'm
not exactly sure.

Speaker 4 (36:04):
How will that circle get squared? But he loves the book.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
So chilling, chilling proximity to stoicism.

Speaker 2 (36:11):
See, that's why epicureanism. I knew it. It's a sign
it's better. Although maybe Epstein could have made an Epicurean case.

Speaker 1 (36:19):
Well, we already do about the the manisphere of Stoicism.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
Wait, does stoicism actually have anything to say about about ethics?
Like about ethics, like what treating other people?

Speaker 1 (36:30):
Or like it has a lot is ethics, like it
is all ethics.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
It's like I know, I know, it's all practical philosophy
like the extent that, but.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
All ancient, all ancient philosophy is about living the good
life to some extent, like from Socrates onwards, so to
that extent.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
Yeah, just because they're greets, you have to imagine that
there's a lot of pedophile stoics anyway.

Speaker 2 (36:54):
Well that's what. Well, that well, that's what I was
wondering because I feel like that.

Speaker 3 (36:58):
But sex and partying, which is the things that Jeffrey
is known for, sex and partying are both extremely unreliable
source of happiness that you should avoid first.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
Okay, nothing for nothing is good or bad as long
as it doesn't complement your character development, and in pursuit
of virtue, that's the thing.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
So there is space, So there is space for it.
That's what because I guess it's really a more modern innovation,
well maybe a Christian innovation actually to say that there's
some inherent dignity right to each person, which I think
would be an easier way to it's harder to shoehorn
some exceptions for you know, illicit behavior being part of

(37:43):
your account of the good life.

Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, I don't think a stoic would say that morally
or ethically, any part of virtue is treating slaves or
people to below you.

Speaker 4 (37:53):
With dignity or respect. I don't think that's even part
of the equation at all.

Speaker 3 (37:57):
So maybe he did nothing wrong stoically speaking, except for
a parting a little too hard.

Speaker 1 (38:02):
Yeah, like his I mean, his interest in these high
philosophical things like Spinoza or Seneca is I mean, I think,
as as far as it goes, it's it's pretty superficial.

Speaker 4 (38:20):
You're stepping on my toes here.

Speaker 1 (38:23):
I'm tempted to say that it is some kind of
existential crisis he's having over maybe over the things he does,
the things he gets off on, and he's trying to
use these things to almost like morally launder it to himself.
But it also just seems like a way of having
this superficial level of learning. So he has things to

(38:47):
say in his emails to people like Stephen Pinker. I
even noticed, is one of his correspondents, And Stephen Pinker
pointed out how like once things started getting to a
more like deeper technical level, like Epstein would quickly change
the subject and bounce to some other topic, Like he

(39:08):
would never go very deeply into anything, So he wanted
that like sort of he wanted that sort of patina
of the stuff of learning and philosophical depth in order
either to justify himself to himself or to at least

(39:28):
just have fucking dinner party conversations and email topics he
could bounce around on.

Speaker 4 (39:36):
I disagree.

Speaker 3 (39:37):
I think that he was really onto something, and that
by offering himself in that fashion, he's really robbed posterity
of some works of brilliance, as I have right in
front of me here.

Speaker 4 (39:48):
So here's the world.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
No, this is honestly, Jeffrey Epstein was working on a
version of panpsychism, his own version of panpsychism. So he
never as far as we know, as far as I know,
he never read the Spinoza book that he bought, But
there seems to be his philosophy. Seems like it's probably
closest to Leibnitz a Leibniz panpsychism. So here's his description

(40:16):
of salt. And I'm sorry this is not going to
make any sense, but this is how he writes, you know, brilliance.
Brilliance comes in many forms, and some of them are
just terrible writers. Sodium and Corene Sick are self aware
and they joined to produce his salt. Is the salt
self aware question mark that it's concentration in water if

(40:41):
too great will cause it to solidify and titrate out.
Does it know it's reaching a critical point?

Speaker 4 (40:49):
Question mark?

Speaker 3 (40:50):
It's all the same, are see, It's all the same.
Everything is God. He's on the spinosen trait here.

Speaker 4 (40:57):
Sorry, back to it.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
Are clouds self aware? They move, they move, change, exchange
material with other clouds, dividey exist only in a narrow
band of temp humdity presser. So you can see what

(41:21):
he's saying here, what he's working on here. With respect
to salt and acl sodium and coreine, sick and clouds,
they do things. We can observe them doing things. So
the proper interpretation should be that there is some sort

(41:44):
of intelligence within them, which is sort of what Leibniz
thought was evidence of the monads. There's very very basic
forms of intelligence in the basic forms of ordering. They
order according to a pattern. That pattern is a sign

(42:06):
of intelligence, because we know when we do things intentionally
patterned lee that we are intelligent. So we extend this
to lower things as a lower form of intelligence, but
still the same, just a difference in scale. So when
we see that coreine and sodium combine to produce salt,

(42:28):
there must be an intelligent principle by which they know
that they are supposed to combine. And similar to when
you put enough salt in solution, When you put enough
salt in solution, eventually it stops dissolving.

Speaker 4 (42:40):
Because there's a point at which it stops dissolving.

Speaker 3 (42:43):
There must be some intelligence that knows that at that
level we are no longer going to dissolve. And similar
to clouds, clouds, clouds separate from each other, then they
rejoin together, they move around, they do rain. So obviously

(43:04):
the correct interpretation of what's going on here is that
they have just a lower form of intelligence, but they
belong to an operative principle because they do things. We
can see that they have a base form of intelligence
within the same form of intelligence that is within us.
So of course everything is a participatory element in intelligence.

Speaker 4 (43:28):
Mind. So God panpsychism.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
I love it.

Speaker 4 (43:32):
And then we come to another.

Speaker 3 (43:35):
He invents a kind of particle, or he thinks there
might be a kind of particle in consciousness that is
faster than light, and he presents this theory to a
physicist who answers him with could you please clarify what
is the problem that you think you have solved. I
presume it isn't anything measurable since I haven't heard the

(43:57):
measurement needed that would give a different solution than standard
methods give. So he sends this message back to Epstein's
saying like this is this is horseshit. But then Deepak
Chopra apparently is on the thread and he basically says
to Jeffrey, don't worry man, this guy doesn't understand your
brilliant Deepak Chopra says this bind, body, mind, and universe

(44:23):
are all symbols for experience and the knowing of experience
in awareness, pure awareness is non symbolic. And Jeffrey says,
it is clear that for hundreds of years, many great
minds have failed at the basic understanding of this issue.
So far no theory supported by repeatable experiment and evidence,

(44:44):
so most of the thought on this are just that thoughts.
Great discoveries were often pulled, often encouraged by the technology
of the time electric microscopes, telescopes. I am confident that
the intemnet is a tech tool, must be part of

(45:07):
the inquiry, the newest of tools. Otherwise it's just some thinkers,
most not as good as Plato or Aristotle, still doing
the exact same thing. So he sends his he sends
his theory to a physicist. The physicist says this is bullshit,
and Deepak Chopra pulls him aside and says, don't worry, Jeffrey,

(45:28):
they just don't get you.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
Incredible, clearly incredible.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Just this this narcissist. He thinks he's got these great ideas.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
Fucking magnets. Man's got a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
So genuinely intelligent people will, Yeah, magnets have.

Speaker 4 (45:48):
Souls, fucking clowns. No one has ever thought about this.

Speaker 1 (45:54):
They will indulge his insanity because he's the money man.
He's been called the financier. Like that's when you read
things about Epstein, he's like called the wealthy financier. He's
he's the financier. He managed what was it? It was
the Victoria's Secret Guy. That was one of his major accounts.

(46:17):
The Victoria's Secret Guy was one of the places. And
he was less like Epstein, I think so, and he
could get this kind of indulgence and attention, and then
he had these strange ideas.

Speaker 3 (46:33):
Yeah, you know, I can handle I can conceive being
ruled by pedophiles, the elite pedophile cabal. I can also
conceive accept even being ruled by retards, because look at
look at our ruling classes. But what I can't abide by.
This is just too much for me to accept. But

(46:54):
what it turns out the real world that we live
in is one where we're just ruled by retarded pedophiles.

Speaker 4 (47:01):
I don't think we should accept this reality.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
You know what, I just you know what, I just realized.
When you become rich, like this rich, then you can
basically make the whole world give you like AI psychosis,
sick of fancy, except for real people.

Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yeah, you're talking to fucking Stephen Hawking and he's like, Jeffrey,
there's much to think about in this idea.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
Yeah, exactly, if you get money, you get to have
the whole world act like chat chipet towards you.

Speaker 4 (47:32):
Yeah, that is so true.

Speaker 3 (47:36):
And then and then like, well, this is this is
the reason. Here's a perfect example of the reason he's
like this is because he's like Dubes, data usage based enthusiasts.

Speaker 4 (47:46):
So whatever that is.

Speaker 3 (47:47):
Then Chomsky says to him, great term, can I plagiarize it?

Speaker 1 (47:53):
Didn't understand it?

Speaker 4 (47:55):
Awesome? Awesome idea, Such a good idea.

Speaker 1 (47:58):
Bro, yeah, like cool man. Yeah, like I'm sure, like
I'm sure Chomsky had like money, but I don't know.
I guess I guess he's just yeah Epstein cool.

Speaker 3 (48:12):
You used to be into New atheism, Victor. Do you
know a guy named Lawrence Kraus, Yes, I do, because
he's in here. He's some sort of physicist and Jeffrey
Epstein is in here giving him advice on how to
deal with an online mob after he got fired from ASU.
I assume that's Arizona State University for groping a groping

(48:36):
a grad student. I think this is another one of
these Joe Rogan physicists guys.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
Yeah, And to be fair, I was never really like
a fan of Lawrence Krauss. I just like knew him
because he would be like one of those people that
would show up on the New atheist like debate circuit.
It would often be Lawrence Kraus against some religious person.
But I can't even really recall, uh, whether it was

(49:03):
whether he was any good back when I meant, by
the way, you know, for to be clear to the listeners, Yeah,
when you say I used to be into New atheist,
yoused to here is like two thousand and eight. Okay,
so I just don't want anybody to think that this
is something recent that I've been interested. I'm talking like
twe almost twenty years ago.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
Okay, sorry, you're my new atheist correspondent because.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
I h but I did happen to know who that is?

Speaker 3 (49:32):
Yeah, Lawrence Krauss and Epstein. Epstein actually argues, so they're
they're they're close enough that Epstein is arguing with him
because he's like, how do you know that there's no
faster than light component if you can't build a detector
to detect it, And Lawrence Krause says, well, you'd have to.
If something were going faster than light, you'd have to

(49:52):
see effects that precede their causes. And Jeffrey Epstein actually
argues with him. He's like, we're not just chemistry. That's
the point. Chemistry dictates our animal portion. If it's just chemistry,
the solution would be easy for the simplest of living organisms.
But they are not not at all. Something else must
be playing a role. Open your mind, he tells a

(50:13):
physicist to open his mind. Deception is part of living systems,
so is intent. They are not physical parameters. And then
Laurence says, like, why would the laws of physics change
just because you're talking about something living chemistry doesn't affect physics.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
That's interesting because he talks about living systems to Chomsky
as well. Living systems need energy, hence they feed all caps, plants, vegetables,
all try to protect themselves, skins, poisons, et cetera. I
believe the best benefit to cost ratioalies on deception with

(50:54):
the capital D and to know the mind of predator prey.
Language just the tool.

Speaker 4 (51:01):
It allows a.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
Shared understanding of mental objects, mental states, and mental actions.
So there's he's he's sending this to Gnome Chomsky.

Speaker 3 (51:13):
He does this constantly with these physicists. He's like, you're
not understanding what I'm saying. There has to be something else,
Like animals are able to camouflage that isn't explained by physics.
This has to be explained by something other than physics
and chemistry. It has to be consciousness. Because he's a panpsychist,
he's sure that there has to be an additional factor

(51:34):
that these scientists are not taking account of. So he
gets frustrated with them when they say when they say, well,
if that's true, we wouldn't be able to detect it anyway,
And then he gets mad at them and they're like, okay, Jeffrey,
well you may be right. Oh, by the way, when's
the next Russian girl coming?

Speaker 1 (51:51):
And like and it's funny, yeah, Like Chomsky's sending him like, oh,
like I read this quote lately. This is interesting, Like, oh,
that's cool, Like can I plagiar eyes that term you
just used? Like uh? And then he sends personal things.
But Epstein's just sending like insane shit.

Speaker 3 (52:14):
Didn't he say, because this is noam, Chompsky's the universal
grammar guy. Didn't Didn't Epstein say, like what if you
just stuck a chimp in a in a room with language?

Speaker 1 (52:23):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (52:24):
Like no, he didn't even say that.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
He said he's his what was Oh my god, this
was this was a funny line. I didn't understand most
of this message, he said to Chompsky.

Speaker 4 (52:38):
You think he's really Let's.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
Just read the whole thing because it's Yeah, even if
far it could act as a north star. Power has
many properties. Those might be some is the ability to
care for many. Power is the ability to find new medicines.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
Power.

Speaker 1 (52:57):
How about a challenge? Okay, here's here's a pitch. This
is a fucking pitch. How about a challenge that says,
put a thing in a room and see if it
can learn language. That was how he articulated it, And
then Chomsky got back to him saying, how about putting
an animal with a human auditory and visual system in

(53:20):
the same room as a human infant, a chimp, for example, Yeah,
see if you can learn speech. But yeah, it doesn't
even with huge training efforts the infant, in which the
infant doesn't need at all, the results for chimps will
be zero.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
Then Jeffrey Epstein's respond says, we'll call it the Chomsky Challenge,
fifty k in prizes, use the Internet to reach the
brightest MinC. Does this guy think that no one has
tried to teach a chimp language before? No one has
ever thought of that as an experimental idea.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
Well, it wasn't interesting that we like, basically that would
be impossible and not work. Like it wasn't an actual jestion,
was it.

Speaker 1 (54:02):
I think I think it was a hypothetical. If you
do that, yeah, the chimp would not learn anything even
if you even if you gave extensive training.

Speaker 2 (54:10):
But then but then but then Epstein takes it, but
then Epstein takes it as a real thing.

Speaker 3 (54:14):
Well that's what happened. Yeah, look, I read this is.
I don't know what to say. Chomsky's like, if you
put a chimp in a room with language, it's not
gonna learn language. And Jeffrey goes, I'll give you fifty
K if you can do it.

Speaker 4 (54:31):
This guy is so dumb.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
Rich people, do you think that, Like, it is very
interesting how stupid he he seems?

Speaker 3 (54:41):
Because this is this, This is this is shocking. This
is something that an eight year old asks, like, there's
there's zero comprehension of how anything. Do you think he's high?

Speaker 2 (54:51):
Though?

Speaker 5 (54:51):
No?

Speaker 2 (54:51):
This is this is also this is something i've This
is so somewhat of like a feeling I have, Like
it kind of makes sense that that that rich people
become or are either are they like so, I think
there's probably a lot of rich people who are pretty
dumb and then get really lucky and do really well
in business. And there might be like some smart rich
people who are pretty smart. But I kind of wonder

(55:12):
now that now that we're like reading these if being
this level of rich and sort of having all these
influential people if it makes you dumber. And the reason
why I think it makes you maybe makes you dumber
is for exactly the effect that I mentioned before that
people start treating you like as like you start getting
treated as if you're always talking to people who are

(55:35):
like chat Gypt, who are sick of pantic, and I
feel like that makes you stupider because you're not getting
any like hardcore resistance. Yeah, you're not getting any friction.
So like, so more and more your ideas are getting
taken up as having insights, so which reinforces the idea
that you're really smart, which just like removes the filter

(55:56):
on your thoughts, and you just say any old stupid
thing and people are just like, yeah, that's really interesting.
There's like an interesting insight there. So you just become
dumber and dumber and dumber because nothing you say is
getting any friction or resistance, to the point where all
of the sudden you just become basically like an idiot
with money.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
How could someone be so dumb to think that no one,
no scientist has ever tried to teach a chimp language
until he came up with the idea. So I think
you your explanation has to be right. A capitalist class
that is this wealthy is no different than a psychotic exactly.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
And then they keep thinking that they're so smart and
their ego gets bigger, but they get dumber in in
direct proportion with uh, with how yeah they they get.
They get more ego in direct proportion with how dumb
they get. So like the dumber they get, the bigger
their ego gets, and the more they say stupid things.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
Now we could add this to one of the types
of alienation that belong in capitalist society, because Mark's already
said capitalists are alienated from regular people just by dint
of not having any concerns. But they're also at this
level alienated from causality itself because they only get positive feedback,

(57:17):
so they spiral into just the most insane explanations for
whatever thing in like in a feedback spiral, until they
don't live in reality anymore.

Speaker 4 (57:28):
Yeah, poor them.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Yeah, existly, this must have been a weird version of
like applying for funding, because like Chomsky for examples, getting
emails from this guy who has the money, but it's
like weird ideas and you just have to wait for
a good idea or be like no, I don't think
that's going to work. Whereas like the normal funding model
is like you have to write a application to the

(57:54):
government for like SHIRK funding or whatever. You have your idea,
you want to get it funded to do the research,
you got to make a pitch. But this is like
crazy rich guy with the money comes up to you
with his ideas and the money, and you got to
be like, mmm, sorry, man, like that's not gonna that's
not gonna be worth me undertaking.

Speaker 2 (58:15):
Yeah, exactly. I would love to know because some people
must realize that this is a risk and what are
they doing to protect themselves? Right? Like what do you
do to protect yourself? You just you just like wouldn't
make friends with random people. You would just have to
like only be friends with people that like you, that
knew you before or trusted you, because like how do

(58:36):
you Yeah, or you're just like really diligent and like
challenge people to challenge you all the time because you're
like I don't want you to be sick aphantic you.
In fact, maybe you stop talking to people who are
like overly positive with you. But that's probably the smart ones,
the smart rich ones must realize this, right, I don't.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
Know I'm sure most of them are. I don't know, intelligent,
I don't I again, I don't want to go into Epstein.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
Epstein was probably Epstein was probably already kind of dumb,
because I think you have to be dumb also to
not realize that that's happening.

Speaker 3 (59:08):
I don't want to make this the poor Billionaire Podcast
by any means, but you have to think you can
literally not trust the intentions of a single other person
unless you'reous, that's the thing, unless you are like married
before you were rich.

Speaker 2 (59:22):
Or or yeah, exactly exactly.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
Your childhood friend or even your childhood friend. What if
he just wants a free house, you know.

Speaker 2 (59:30):
Yeah, exactly exactly. I feel like you can never really
trust anybody except people you knew before, who you who
you maintained relationships with.

Speaker 3 (59:38):
But Jeffrey Epstein is legit stupid. This is like, like
Joe Rogan is smarter than Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Oh yeah, he sees a causal relationship between his success, Well,
he sees a causal relationship between success and intelligence and
then assumes that that applies to him when there is
no causal relationship there, and the fact that he is
successful and wealthy was he's dead now. Was successful and wealthy?

(01:00:10):
I mean successful in massive quotation marks.

Speaker 4 (01:00:14):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
Was he successful? Okay, he had a lot of money,
He had access to a lot of people, and he
collected He collected these contacts, like he made the effort
to have these people in his phone book whatever, in
his email contacts list, and to be able to like,

(01:00:39):
if I'm looking at like even that lady he was
kind of with right, that Jelayne Maxwell lady, like she
was a New York socialite. And then other people that
appear if you look at his contacts list. Famous people. Yeah,
he talked to Elon Musk. I think so many any

(01:01:00):
important or interesting or scientific academic people. Then he thought
this all reflected on like his own ability, and then
he's like, okay, I'm gonna seed the human population now
and spread my DNA because he also had stupid ideas
about DNA.

Speaker 3 (01:01:19):
Well, this would be very dangerous if Jeffrey Epstein was
to see the human race because he's a fucking moron.
But the question is if is he medically stupid genetically
or do you become medically stupid because you become a billionaire.
It's relevant, relevant causal question. One more thing I wanted
to add to his theory of his panpsychic theory of

(01:01:42):
the cosmos.

Speaker 4 (01:01:44):
If you search the word.

Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
Mobjects, objects is Jeffrey Epstein's word for mental objects. And
he keeps telling all these different he keeps telling all
these different people, could you like, are you going to
study it? And one guy's like, yeah, sure, thanks, you
already gave me one hundred thousand dollars. I'm going to
send you a follow up email to show you how

(01:02:06):
it's been put to use. Anyway, mobjects, great idea. Here's
what I think it would it would mean. And like
Jeffrey Epstein's so tickled that people are taking up.

Speaker 4 (01:02:15):
His term objects.

Speaker 3 (01:02:19):
Oh god, but yet another example. I think Victor's theory
of a billionaire sycophant psychosis. This has to be the
causal explanation. It's the only one that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
Yeah, exactly, And I guess that's I mean, it's not
super surprising that research in any field, whatever it is,
even if it's scientific research, influenced by money. But it's
also kind of disturbing.

Speaker 3 (01:02:47):
And in this, in this in our in this reality,
this is what Jeffrey Epstein, one of the dumbest people
whose words have ever read. After reading thousands of people's writing,
he he's the one who decides who is an intellectual
and who is an artist in the twenty first century.

Speaker 2 (01:03:05):
Amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:03:07):
I mean Chopra's quote here from twenty seventeen. God is
a construct. Cute girls are.

Speaker 4 (01:03:12):
Real words of wisdom.

Speaker 3 (01:03:15):
But while we're complaining about this and blaming capitalism for
it and blah blah blah, we should remember we should
have some historical sense here that within the purview of
human knowledge, most of it has been developed by people
exactly like this. Most of it has not been publicly funded.
Publicly funded researches is like two to three hundred years old.

(01:03:39):
Most of its history, developments in art, developments in science
was done at the behest of incestuous, pedophilic dumbasses who
are like, hey, can you incorporate my word mobjects into
your theory? That would be great. Ah, here's another two
hundred grand there you go.

Speaker 4 (01:04:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:04:00):
And in the scope of things, the engine of human
progress is not anything like will or genius or ambition.
It's just retarded narcissists that wanted someone to study the
idea that they just came up with, and they have
a lot of money that they didn't earn themselves.

Speaker 4 (01:04:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
When I think of yeah, when I think of the
much beloved Italian Renaissance, yeah, it's not a whole lot
different in many ways.

Speaker 4 (01:04:27):
It's true.

Speaker 1 (01:04:28):
Michelangelo, the Eternal Genius was like on the payroll of
the medicis. All the beautiful buildings and all the beautiful
works of art were all commissioned by rich people to honor,
and a lot of it went into their private family chapels,
and nobody could really go see it anyway, until like

(01:04:49):
modern times when we got interested in showing art to
the masses. But before then it would just be like, oh, yeah,
this isn't the family chapel. No, you can't see it
because or like a commoner, but like the other rich
people can come see it. That's fine. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:05:07):
So and Descartes was a tutor to the Swedish Princess
or whatever Aristotle following Alexander the Great Round. I mean,
they's kind of been the brightest bulbs in the in
the in the box.

Speaker 4 (01:05:22):
Anyway, not justifying it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:24):
We're not trying to go back to the We're not
trying to go back to the sixteenth century.

Speaker 4 (01:05:27):
But it's not all that foreign.

Speaker 1 (01:05:31):
Well, it's it's the Yeah, like Descartes Aristotle, the people
they worked for sucked up to were high status for
different reasons. Epstein not because he had a family name,
but just because he had money and was good with money,

(01:05:53):
I guess, or was at least just the kind of
fake it till you make it person. Trust me with
your money, victorious secret guy gave him his money. Some
other people trusted him with money. He was okay with math.

Speaker 3 (01:06:07):
Well, probably because he had pictures of them in bed
with teenagers. I mean, that's that's the most logical exploration
at this.

Speaker 4 (01:06:13):
Point, isn't it right?

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
Right? Exactly exactly?

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
Last reference to philosophy that I found, apparently he drops
Plato at parties because someone named Lola m messages him
and says, I just realized that when you criticize democracy. Ooh, yeah,
that's another.

Speaker 4 (01:06:33):
Theme of these guys.

Speaker 3 (01:06:34):
When you criticize democracy. You used Plato's argument with the surgery.
Plato's point in the Republic is that you need to
You wouldn't trust a non expert to operate on your body.
Someone who is good at speaking about surgery. You would
not trust them to do surgery on you. So just

(01:06:54):
like that, we need a good We need a statesman
who's a professional statesman to run the state, not someone
who is elected because they're good at speaking to people.
Oh and the end of that message, it says, I
just realized when you criticize democracy used Plato's argument with
the surgery. Then she says, I also realized that come

(01:07:15):
is really good body lotion. Just wanted to make sure
the whole message got in there.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Amazing, lovely, lovely.

Speaker 3 (01:07:27):
But this also shows that Epstein conceives of himself again
above the people, but he sees himself as the philosopher king.
The philosopher king in a democracy, at least, is the
one behind the scenes, who knows how to get things done,
who knows what's what, who knows what palms it to
be greased, while the puppets of democracy they run around

(01:07:49):
and just talk. So Epstein sees himself as the engineer,
the intellect behind the democratic system. And you can see
that a little bit in his in his sponsorships of
certain politicians that he liked. Apparently he was going over
with his one of his English buddies and making sure

(01:08:09):
that they didn't increase taxes on bankers like himself. So yeah,
he's not a great guy all around. Hatred of democracy, eugenics, stupidity,
mystical neuroscience, health, longevity, living forever. He seems to have
some interest in that stuff, and just dumb Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
Just googling. I'll just just want to throw this in there.
He was into cryogenics or cryonics or whatever you call it,
and he wanted his head and his penis frozen.

Speaker 3 (01:08:44):
Now that's that's so contradictory. That is contradictory because that's
exactly the opposite of the purpose of Seneca.

Speaker 2 (01:08:53):
Right right, exactly exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
Yeah, the short life thing and then the it's all
just whimsical bullshit.

Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
All right, Well, good place and the theory of Epstein, Victor,
I think you get the gold star for the day
for solving it. Oh well, I appreciate that psychosis billionaire
psycho's psychosis. So the next time that you think you
have the right to criticize a billionaire, remember that they
are suffering from a mental illness and you are being

(01:09:25):
ablest by criticizing them.

Speaker 2 (01:09:26):
He's alienated from how did you refer to it. He's
like a new a new category of Marxist.

Speaker 3 (01:09:32):
Alienation, alienation from intelligence from the own brain, or a
subcategory of a subcategory.

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
Of self alienation is like alienation from your own brain.

Speaker 2 (01:09:46):
Yeah, alienation from from like uh, interpersonal critique or something,
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:09:52):
Friction free, no self criticism possible.

Speaker 3 (01:09:56):
So yeah, that's what Jeffrey Epstein was a victim of capitalism.

Speaker 2 (01:10:03):
That's a that's a that's a good name for the
for the podcast. Jeffrey Epstein was a victim dot dot
dot of capital.

Speaker 1 (01:10:09):
Here's here's here's a here's a lovely quote to end on. Uh,
it seems this is something Epstein wrote approvingly. It seems
that Greece and Rome had a class society that allowed
the upper classes to have more offspring than the lower
classes and larger social mobility based on IQ than our
current and arrangement.

Speaker 3 (01:10:29):
Yeah, if only our class was based on IQ, if
we had our classes based on IQ, then Musk and
Ebstein would be living on welfare, they'd be in government housing.

Speaker 1 (01:10:38):
Yeah, both Greece and Rome had a class society that
he is approving of.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
Awesome, Awesome that the two guys who are obsessed with
inheritability and i Q, are these two guys awesome?

Speaker 4 (01:10:55):
All right?

Speaker 1 (01:10:56):
Throw that in there? Why not?

Speaker 4 (01:10:58):
Good stuff guys? But he later

Speaker 3 (01:11:09):
Mm hmm