Friday, December 10, 2021

Ideas on the Epstein Horribleness, and Conspiracies of Probability

 

In response to the belief that elites “probably” did NOT conspire to have Jeffrey Epstein murdered (because we don't have hard 'evidence').

All those elites that Epstein could have fingered (so to speak)--what do you suppose they were up to, as the star witness against them lay locked in prison?  Nothing?  You suppose they were just hoping he might off himself, or some psycho prisoner might murder him, and, other than hoping, took no action?...If that seems as doubtful to you as it does to me, what actions do you suppose they took (and are taking now)?

The central fact of elite conspiracies is the lack of evidence--BECAUSE THEY CAN AND DO GET RID OF IT--but a preponderance of motive and means, and circumstantial evidence--and a history of nefarious damage control by similar entities--check, check, CHECK!  These are red flags that should lead to a thorough and independent investigation, assuming one were politically possible, and presumably turn up more hard evidence despite conspirators’ efforts to the contrary. True conspirators are banking on our disbelief/apathy, which is based on the lack of evidence that they themselves have engineered.

 But the court of public opinion isn't a court of law—and it can’t be in an age when many of the more influential wrongdoers fail to even be indicted (and many principled heros are indicted, and imprisoned).  Plus, in the poltical realm, so much ends up "confidential" or "classified"—and yet we need to vote for one possibly dirty candidate or another, and choose our other political activities wisely.    

Hopefully, any killers, rapists and obstructors of justice will be thrown in the can or on the chair--but, right here, right now, what we, the public, are trying to do is ascertain PROBABLE truth, using whatever info we can get our hands on.  Moreover, this is the inverse of a court of law, in which the reasonable POSSIBILITY of untruth means full acquittal.  The point of figuring out what PROBABLY went down in a given situation is to direct our political muscle accordingly (which, thank god, does not require convictions or acquittals)--and to figure out who we need to protect ourselves from. 

This is very different from legal conviction.  OJ might get off in court, but we might still dissuade our daughter from marrying him--you see?  Conversely, another person—say, Steven Donziger—may seem to have been railroaded unjustly into a prison term—but maybe we decide, based on the conclusion that the conviction was corrupt, to contribute to that person's cause.  Maybe we thereafter decide to support politically those who came to his aid, and work against those who did not.

 And this it is good that we can make decisions not subject to the stringency and innocent-until-proven-guilty bias of a court of law (or its possible corruption!), because probability is all we may ever get, given the fact that conspirators cover their trail and have the power to do so.  We'll NEVER have the full body of evidence to consider.  Plus, in the final analysis, making all of our decisions based on shrewdly calculated PROBABILITY is one (albeit rudimentary) definition of wisdom—if not of U.S.-Constitutional jurisprudence.

 To circle back to the violent death of Jeffery Epstein, we have at least a partial list of powerful people who associated with the man, and may have availed themselves of his stable of underage sex slaves or otherwise profited from it—and subsequently had him killed to protect themselves.  Bill Clinton is on that list, so is Bill Gates and many others.  Given human nature, especially the ways and means of the wealthy and powerful, this scenario is quite plausible...You can't say it isn't plausible.  Neither does it strain credulity that these powerful people have been using their resources to wriggle out of legal consequences, as Epstein himself did--up until the end.  They may even manipulate the media to come out smelling like benevolent victims (and it is always possible that this is true).  And so we will never have “proof” of their exact role in this horrid exploitation, only probabilities, however solid or flimsy.  Still, based on our statistical perceptions (our research, our knowledge of history and logic...), we can vote, we can engage in activism, we can talk and reason with each other—in short, we can do whatever we can to bring the probably, allegedly, plausibly guilty down.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment