If You Seek the Truth, Look for What's Taboo

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the scientists, researchers, academics, intellectuals and techies who were invited by Epstein to a gathering.

Based on search results, I appear to have coined the aphorism "If You Seek the Truth, Look for What's Taboo."

This is a variation on a precept I coined in December: "Tell me what's taboo and I'll tell you the truths that threaten the status quo."

Two essays in the tsunami of Epstein-related commentaries referenced what could be counted as taboos because they speak to "what is" rather than "what is acceptable to the status quo."

Matt Stoller made two worthy observations:
1. The MAGA movement--which includes many factions--attached great importance to the Epstein case as the most egregious manifestation of elite abuse of power. To have the files buried yet again only proves the powerful who would be exposed have yet again evaded being held accountable.

2. The scandal isn't what's been hidden, it's that Epstein operated in plain sight.

Here is Stoller's essay: Jeff Epstein, MAGA, and Monopolies:
"And while it's super bizarre and we lack details, it's also obviously true that there's a conspiracy in plain sight. What matters here isn't that it's hidden, because it's not. The Epstein scandal is a bunch of powerful people flaunting to the rest of us that there is no accountability."

Naomi Wolf's essay, "The Network" in the Worlds of the Elites, posits an explanation for the suppression based on tangential evidence and her own experiences:

"I also believe that there are make-or-break tech bro Trump supporters on the list, because of a moving interview given by Eric Weinstein on July 14, 2025— interestingly, in the midst of the Bondi furor — to Steven Bartlett, on the 'Diary of a CEO' podcast."

What I found particularly telling in Wolf's account is the reaction of all the other "insiders" who shared the same influential literary agent in Epstein's orbit: after Wolf cut her own ties to the agent, while they murmured sympathy for her action, no one else did anything other than remain silent. Here's Wolf's explanation of the dynamics:

"After I left, I had a lot of conversations with Brockman’s other clients. They called me — I did not call them.

To a man (and they were all men) these distinguished intellectuals explained that they empathized with my views and shared my indignation about Epstein’s misdeeds, but that they were not going to leave Brockman Inc.

I guess what I am trying to explain is the power and endurance, and really, the sanctity, of “the network” in the worlds of the elite.

Even with the news breaking that the agency’s cultural activities were funded by a pedophile, Brockman’s other clients rightly calculated that their staying within the shelter of such a powerful network, would be more beneficial to them, than would be leaving, even if on principle, and losing the support of and access to that influential network.

And they were right.

What you need to understand, taking this all back to what I believe is President Trump’s dilemma, is that that calculation about the power of 'the network,' and the scary losses sustained by crossing “the network”, let alone losing its protection and resources, are not restricted to the Edge Foundation.

All of liberal elite society works in this exact same way.

It is all kind of like the mafia -- you may not agree with the capo or some of the dons around you, but you know very well that crossing them means certain destruction for yourself.

So: everyone aligns."

Wolf concludes her essay with this summary:

"I guess what I am trying to show you is -- no one, or very few, in truly elite circles, wants to risk losing the valuable, precious, life-sustaining network.

So he or she goes along with just about anything, in the characters of others in the network.

This doesn’t mean they approve -- but they go along.

You can't cross the network."

As Stoller observed, there is no hidden conspiracy here, it's all in plain sight.

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the scientists, researchers, academics, intellectuals and techies who were invited by Epstein or his operatives to a party or soiree or some gathering that had no visible link to Epstein's pedo-island operation.

Name-dropping the other guests entices us to attend: wow, I'll be meeting a bunch of heavy-hitters.

Meeting these power-players makes us feel important. We're now linked, even if only marginally, to powerful people who can advance our careers, finance our research labs, etc. We might be able to leverage these informal introductions into future opportunities to further our own interests.

In effect, this introduction is an wild-card "membership" in an informal alliance that we can use to our advantage, and we don't want to relinquish it unnecessarily.

If we don't support the alliance by keeping quiet / remaining uncritical, we threaten our "membership" and the potential support of the power-players.

While Epstein's operation may well have sought direct blackmail leverage over the visitors to his pedo-island, those who were only loosely tied to his financier-academic networking would still fear exposing any part of the network, for your "membership," as informal as it may be, could be used against you.

Epstein was the hub in this vast collection of inter-connected wheels with many spokes--powerful, wealthy, influential men. The power arose from his role as an informal broker, connecting people of elite status who then saw their wild-card "membership" as valuable, if not today then tomorrow, and so they owed Epstein something, even if it was at arm's length, for it was his invitation that enabled their "membership."

The French word engrenages comes to mind here: commonly translated as gearing, but more appropriately perhaps it also denotes being caught up in gearing that is irreversible due to the design and mechanics of the system,
and then being caught up in an inescapable series of events.

In other words, Epstein's hub-and-spoke network wasn't an aberration, it was the optimization of the status quo system. This is the taboo that cannot be said out loud. Now everyone who is caught up in the gearing is also a participant in an inescapable series of events.

This web of influence wasn't just about money--and Epstein had plenty to distribute--though that was a key attractor; it was also about joining the "club" of elites whose path to the top was cleared of obstacles and who avoided accountability by having the "right contacts" and "legal advisors." That too is a powerful attractor to the ambitious seeking insider status.

Anyone in the circles Epstein used as recruiting pools had reached some kind of elite position in tech, finance or academia by following the rules for advancing up the Establishment hierarchy.

In other words, they were self-selected to be extremely ambitious, highly motivated and willing to follow the rules and ignore improprieties to get ahead.

Everyone prone to whistle-blowing had already been self-selected out of the network. Only those willing to "go along to get along" reached the level high enough to interest Epstein's operation.

On the face of it, those caught up in the gearing who weren't intelligence officers or pedo-islanders are little different from regular folks who "network" to advance their interests.

What's different is the sums of money being made available and the implicit obligation to keep mum about what transpired: though this network lacked a formal institutional structure, it offered the kinds of money and connections that are typically only available within elite institutions.

It also shares some characteristics with intelligence agencies. Though not formally sworn to silence, those hoping their wild-card "membership" might pay off in the future were just as motivated to remain silent as any gung-ho intelligence officer.

Once again, those who join such networks are self-selected to follow the rules. Consider the case of Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers to a journalist--but only after soul-searching and with reservations, for Ellsberg had been a True Believer in the war's righteousness and a dutiful participant.

Others had access to the Pentagon Papers, but only one risked the avalanche of consequences that would befall any whistleblower.

Is there anything else we might consider taboo in all this? And by taboo, I mean something that threatens the status quo elites in some meaningful manner.

Perhaps the taboo is simple and obvious: elites in America act with impunity and fear exposure of the sources of their impunity.

They're not above the law; there is no law, there's only limitless ambition and fear.

Will anyone caught up in this inescapable series of events leak the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers? Probably not, for the rot has reached so deep into every post and every beam in the entire status quo structure that not a single person is left who will take any action other than remain silent to protect themselves from their fellow elites.
CHS NOTE: I understand some readers object to paywalled posts, so please note that my weekday posts are free and I reserve my weekend Musings Report for subscribers. Hopefully this mix makes sense in light of the fact that writing is my only paid work/job. I am grateful for your readership and blessed by your financial support.