And so what I have likened this to is that the United States had something like
a,
a Ferrari convertible and it left the top down so that it started getting filled
up with rain and it started screaming, steal me
in Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, on its front bonnet.
Lastly, I want to use a technique which is extremely important to me,
that I've talked about before at the behest of Naval Ravikant on Twitter.
So you can find a Twitter thread that will go under something like the title.
The invisible world is first discovered in the visible worlds failure to close.
Now what do I mean by that? What I mean is,
is that sometimes you discover that something is not right only because the
explanation for everything that can be seen doesn't add up.
My favorite example of this is beta decay and something like cobalt 60.
If you measure the momenta of all of the visible particles,
you'll notice that it doesn't add up to a concert,
a conserved momentum equation.
And this is what allowed Wolfgang Pauli to hypothesize that there must be
something carrying away some momentum that is electrically neutral and cannot be
seen. And he named it the neutrino, the little neutral one.
Well, something didn't make sense about Jeffrey Epstein.
How could somebody have that much money claim to be a hedge fund manager be so
clearly focused on his persona and not look or sound like anybody I'd ever met
in trading at that point,
I believe that this person in some sense represented a failure of the visible
worlds failure to close. And so I decided that it was with some probability,
not a hundred percent, certainly that this person was in fact a construct.
Now around,
I forget when it was 2005 some point through 2007,
Jeffrey Epstein becomes entangled with Florida law enforcement for requesting or
arranging massages from underage women.
That was almost certainly a massage,
was a euphemism for some form of child prostitution.
This was an extremely disturbing episode in which he was vigorously defended by
a high profile team, which is his right in an adversarial system.
But it was with a particular vigor that I found absolutely disturbing and
unsettling and that the sentence given to Jeffrey Epstein seemed to be so
reduced compared to what he was being accused of that I felt like I had to just
check, check all of my intuitions.
Why was such a light sentence being imposed
further? People I knew went,
visited him in prison and talked about him being a friend,
talked about him being a massage enthusiast.
It made no sense to me that this person who was being accused of some form of
pedophilia was being treated very differently than I would have imagined by
people that I very much respected. At the time.
I didn't understand what was going on,
but I started to formulate a second theory and I haven't heard it discussed much
in the media, so I'll share it with you now.
The idea is that if you buy the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was in fact a
construct of the intelligence community.
My belief is is that he was constructed to be a sapiosexual Hugh Hefner.
In some sense. He was the Dan Bilzerian of his day.
That is somebody who is not interested in a little girls but is instead
interested in young women,
women over the age of consent who by law have every right to associate with
whoever they wish to and can engage in consensual relations.
Now you may frown upon it. You may look down upon it.
You may say that it's an abusive power for a man in his forties, fifties.
What have you to be cavorting with some person above the age of consent.
However,
I don't take the same exact view of it that I take the view of somebody going
below the age of consent. So in the era of me too,
we have a different situation in which people are very uncomfortable even
talking about the legal situation in which women in their early twenties who may
be trying to wield sexual power or contending with men who may be trying to
wield political or economic power.
And that's an issue that I don't have a particular interest in settling,
but whatever it is,
it's very different than somebody sending people to a high school to find 15
year old girls or 14 year old girls for erotic massages or prostitution or what
have you.
So my belief was in effect that the intelligence community that may have
constructed Jeffrey Epstein was constructing him to be a sapiosexual Hugh
Hefner, but that they had stupidly,
stupidly and mistakenly hired somebody who was actually closer to Humbert
Humbert as an actor.
That is the underlying actor playing the role of Jeffrey hipster Jeffrey
Epstein.
Hedge fund genius was in fact someone with a pedophilia problem that was
probably not known to the intelligence community when it constructed the
project,
which I believe would have had to have dated from the eighties or nineties when
Jeffrey Epstein first started amassing his network of high profile context under
this mysterious reputation as a one of a kind financial genius.
As a result that would explain a great deal of why people's intuition was wildly
off about Jeff.
People who did not have a problem with an older rich man going after young women
above the age of consent were suddenly forced to contend with the question of
was this person secretly interested in women below the age of consent and
perhaps considerably below the age of consent.
So this went to some of the way towards explaining that,
but I've had another issue that I've tried to talk to people about,
which I also think figures into this story.
Why was Jeffrey Epstein so focused on science and in particular,
why was he focused on heterodox science? Keep in mind, I'm just, I'm reading,
I'm reading nothing. This is a completely ad lib.
So just allow me to catch my breath
in my theory. What I fear and what I believe is,
is that the American scientific project has not understood that it has been
abandoning its scientific assets. And if you look at my work,
you can notice that this is a throughline having nothing to do with Jeffrey
Epstein. In effect,
we have made it impossible for American scientists to profit using the market
from their discoveries because we exclude fundamental discoveries from
intellectual property protection. Therefore,
you have a problem that when you make a discovery,
it is both in an excludable.
If you share it in the scientific literature and inexhaustible,
that is that anyone who discovers it can use it without precluding anyone else
from discovering from using it. Okay.
When you have something that fits those twin criterion,
then even free market economists will agree that it constitutes a public good,
a failure of the market to keep value and price in lockstep.
In essence,
we pay for scientific research out of taxpayer dollars because the market cannot
price it correctly.
So you have something which I believe to be a fantastic value,
including military value and potentially industrial value as it is translated
from pure science into technology. However,
for some reason the United States has been losing its appetite for funding
high-level scientific research and protecting it with academic freedom.
As the university system goes into free fall,
that is our university system is structured as a Ponzi scheme.
And after Vannevar Bush and the endless frontier doctrine forced us to do our
blue sky research inside of universities rather than inside of research
institutions dedicated to the purpose, we developed a weird problem,
we would no longer be able to pay our scientists and use the fact that people
could contribute the labor of their youth into a system where they would then
become professors to train other professors if each professor trained perhaps 20
graduate students to become professors.
You can tell that after a very short period of time you've got a pyramid scheme
that can't keep expanding as we did be in the postwar system where we educated
sub 10% of our population at a postsecondary level to around 1970 or so when we
were educating around 50% of our population at a postsecondary level.
So when the music stopped, the system started to decay.
You had an extremely valuable system.
I've said before that theoretical physics largely constructed our modern economy
invented the worldwide web. It invented the semiconductor.
He gave us nuclear power,
nuclear weapons our communications technology and the electromagnetic spectrum.
So many of the things that we take for granted, including molecular biology,
came out of theoretical physics.
And so what I have likened this to is that the United States had something like
a,
a Ferrari convertible and it left the top down so that it started getting filled
up with rain. And it started scrawling steel me
in Mandarin, Farsi, Russian on its front bonnet.
We are not protecting our scientific assets. In fact,
when Jeffrey Epstein came back out of prison I think if I recall correctly,
I tweeted that Jeffrey Epstein was somebody who was funding what the American
government refused to fund. And I recall if, if I'm not
you're being too self kind that I said,
welcome back with a period rather than an exclamation point because I was
extremely dismayed that we are fundamentally leaving this open.
We left a niche for such a person to start exploiting us.
If Jeffrey Epstein was able to find this niche,
then I believe that other nations will be able to find it as well.
So what happened inside of the scientific enterprise is that many scientists had
some memory from inside of the system when professors would in fact have
potentially second homes or even third homes where they would be paid at a level
that was commensurate with financeers or high priced lawyers.
That in essence the children of academic families were growing up with the
children a very well to do families because there wasn't such income and asset
inequality in the United States.
I believe that the need to pay the scientific community,
particularly the top members of the scientific community at a far higher level
is not a question of taxpayer dollars. It's a question of, first of all,
being fair to the community that created our economy.
Those are not taxpayer dollars. They are scientific dollars in my opinion.
We can argue that at some other point,
but it's also a question of national interest that is,
that is completely irresponsible for us to pretend that the market for
scientific research talent should be determined by your ability to teach
undergraduates.
We should probably decouple the teaching and research enterprises.
We should probably get rid of the majority of our research enterprise and we
should take care of the people who are being power laws at a very high level for
the national interest. It's not a question about a PA overpaying them.
It's a question of we are leaving a valuable asset on guarded.
And I believe that Jeffrey Epstein was attempting in part to gain control of
that app asset.
That's why people like George Church or Robert Trevor's or Stephen Hawking or
any one of a number of people like Lisa Randall were found on Jeffrey Epstein's
Island. By the way,
I think it's very important to stop using the fun phrases pedophile Island and
Lolita express when you have people who almost certainly are not part of any
kind of orgiastic culture like Lisa Randall or Betsy divine, it's ridiculous.
In part what we're doing is we're turning a salacious story into a very
dangerous national emergency. If in fact,
Jeffrey Epstein was up to something very different than the mainstream story
would have you believe.