Epstein
Utility as Human Form; Otherwise a Comprehensive List of Reasons to Hate Me.
I did not want to actually write a disclaimer for this essay and I had hoped that I could rely on the seriousness of readers to understand the subject matter of this document, but I do not have that much faith in others. After reviewing my commentary, I decided it is not accessible for the average reader.
For the purpose of containing the misreadings I will receive from publishing, I will clarify three things now:
1. We, as society and as individuals already understand why pedophilia, sex trafficking and refusal to declassify information to the public is bad. I want to move past the juvenile and surface level commentary that posits what we already intuit. The purpose of this essay is to go beyond the moral, legal, and social transgressions and understand why an event like this could occur in the first place.
2. I do not seek to condone, justify or in any way, shape, or form attempt to absolve Epstein and associates of responsibility. To the contrary, I hope to draw radical empathy from the readers to understand that Epstein is not an anomaly, and this behaviour is what occurs when human variation is insulated by power. Human variation in my use, refers to the bell-curve of traits, archetypes, desires and behaviour present in humanity.
3. My initial essay was based on the themes of Epstein’s island, the differences between theistic and atheistic Satanism and its relevance/instrumental use on the island and during the collections of sexual abuse. I chose to write something grounded in abstract logic and systems thinking, instead of mere speculation and moral outcry, because I believe attributing Epstein & associates actions to Satanism, a world order (Obviously, there is hierarchy) or ritual sacrifice sanitises the true depravity of his choices.
Fundamentally, I cannot in good-faith publish my writing today without making these statements because unfortunately, I do not trust the average reader to hold these multiple truths, abstract ideas and my personal goodwill at once.
Pedophilia and Appetite
I simply do not believe in pedophilia as a paraphilia or psychosexual disorder. I do not believe that people who experience sexual abuse as children become sexual predators. I reject that psychiatry attempts to sanitise the dark nature of human variation, and in its’ sanitation; creates ideas that are comforting narratives designed to moralise complexity into a framework that humans can easily digest, without confronting incentive structures. All acts of violence and attraction toward children occur for two simple reasons: Access and discretion.
A child represents ultimate vulnerability, unsullied innocence and secrecy. The act of attraction towards children is not desire, not trauma, not structural logic and certainly not leverage beyond purely mechanical acts to satiate sexual perversions.
Maybe that’s why I’m not attracted to children — Beyond, the obvious reason of not having a sexual attraction to minors. I am aware, in a way that most people cannot tolerate — In a way, that Epstein could tolerate, understand and exploit — that a child cannot consent, cannot reciprocate, cannot provide leverage and cannot confer power.
In the event that we strip away law, morality, sentiment, ideology and ethics, an unavoidable reality remains: Child attraction and exploitation is structurally and logically degenerate, rendering it socially and systemically non viable. It is rot.
Desire aimed at children is not a mental illness, sexual disorder or an external variable the moral actor (person) cannot escape. It is in its foundation, first an error in appetite, then a misalignment of leverage and utility. Only, after this fact, it becomes a moral, ethical, social and legal transgression. Above all, it is a choice.
I reject the common narrative that people are unable to stop acting upon this “affliction,” Rather, I do not believe it to be an affliction at all. (Yes, even the attraction when not acted upon.) Not in the sense of schizophrenia or say narcissistic personality disorder. It is an unorthodox opinion but I believe all attraction to, and acts are by choice. Selected by ability to disarm and overpower.
Humans have evolved to navigate incentives, to exploit utility where possible, to leverage systems where available. A child cannot participate in that system because they lack the agency or scaffolding to benefit. There is no event or context in which a child can consent or benefit to the asymmetrical dynamic of child and adult, therefore, they are excluded from the calculus.
And yet, my reflection is destabilising for other reasons. Epstein — of all people — is someone that I can easily identify with despite my condemnation of his personhood and criminal actions.
Or more accurately, since he existed as the endpoint and morbid offshoot, crossing the moral boundary of my prerogative.
Epstein sees me. Terrifying.
I, however, hold an intimate and fully fledged reverence for children. I believe that as an adult, I am indebted to children. Children are owed protection, guidance and stability.
Not consumption.
Any violation of that simple principle is grotesque because it subverts the only truly functional system that preserves human continuity and social coherence.
This is precisely why I can articulate an understanding of Epstein’s appetite without moral confusion: I am not attracted to children, and in the rare event that I developed some kind of mental lapse or mental illness that made me attracted to minors (Which I do not believe exist, I purely assign moral responsibility to individual.): I simply cannot see any situation in which you can derive any utility from children. Where I see impossibility in every metric of the word, others perceive lust and see opportunity.
I recognise in myself: a hunger for exploitation, a desire to understand and operate power structures at their most intimate and human levels. I recognise appetite. I recognise risk. I recognise leverage. That recognition — the ability to parse human appetite for function rather than emotion and sentiment, it makes me almost suicidal in its intensity. If the same structural forces that drove Epstein had been aligned toward me, I know I would have targeted demographics willing to heel toward my hunger for power. I believe it my darkest admission, but most honest confession: I do not hate Epstein because he exploited others or because he was a clear psychopath with a need to self aggrandise. I hate him because the group he targeted was never able to understand the mechanics of power and desire. I feel disgust at him because he targeted and exploited children incapable of even approaching such a subject.
Children.
I don’t think people understand how truly animalistic that is. I think people are able to cling onto the justified moral outrage, and I think people naturally understand good vs evil, but I do not think people can truly conceptualise how past the moral and social transgression, how disruptive and degenerate this kind of abuse is.
Why do I feel disgust at him for his desire toward children, and not in the event of adults being abused? What is it about my interior world that draws such a contrast between who we owe protection to and people I write off as “not my concern” ? Why is it, that the framework of utility matters more to me than law, morality and self-preservation? Because the function and structural scaffolding of society relies on action and consequence. Action presumes consequences, so we must first dissect the purpose of the action. In this case, the purpose was destruction.
Total annihilation. For the purpose of pleasure.
These axioms are the reason someone like Jeffrey Epstein could ever operate in the first place. And it’s important not to conflate structural reality with sympathy. I do not sympathise with the late criminal. Epstein has crossed a line in which I can no longer even hate him, I can only feel indifference because a human non-being — what he made himself — cannot understand the concept of hate. These people, they are beyond what we can even describe with human cognition.
It would be like hating a tsunami. What purpose can I derive from hating an entity of pandaemonium? When I use the world hate in this essay, it cannot begin to describe the level of betrayal I truly feel towards my own species.
Self-Recognition and Annihilation
Could the Devil exist? Am I the Devil?
What’s his email? Oh it’s jeevacation@gmail.com
I am similar. Not in the way most people would fear, not in the way most people would condemn. Not particularly even in a way where harm is localised. It is relational.
I only exploit willing participants.
I too, allow myself to be exploited consistently to create leverage or emotional debt. Is it not equilibrium?
If Epstein created a discrete escort service for the political and cultural Elite composing of adult women. I wouldn’t care, and no one else would either. But that would be too easy for him, and too easy for the elites he surrounded himself with. There would be a willingness and that is precisely what they sought to avoid. It is the very nature of his demographic choice, children: that is both transgression — creating desire in the predator — and taboo — creating disgust and moral outrage within us as the audience.
Colloquially known as: they’re playing in your face because your anger gets their rocks off.
I am repulsed morally, but I recognise the system he operated from. I belong in the inversion of his moral decay. I expect to be exploited, to be used, and to be discarded within an appropriate and correct fashion.
Mostly, I am addicted to what lies behind the veil of normalcy humans maintain, and to what end we will deny our morality rests atop the mechanics of power and competition. However, I don’t want to project my personality or values onto others. I will not write off my own defective shadows as some unknown societal feeling we all secretly harbour. I understand what I am describing can be classified as unhinged, morally gross and outright written off as some kind of apologia. It is not that.
It is neither mental illness, nor a lack of self esteem. It is in my high view of myself that I began to understand the very value of my life and the outcomes attached to it. In this valuation, I start to understand myself not as having some inherent value — in relation to society, community etc, (not in the inherent ontological value of a human being) — but instead, a blank slate. An untouched canvas that can be utilised, and therefore useful. Following this revelation, I no longer cared about being seen as moral, correct, or even remembered. I’ll attempt to clarify my position since being immoral, consistently incorrect and consecutively discarded is antithetical to, and would undermine my larger ambitions. What I really mean is that being cared about, being kept, and being liked are irrelevant if the asymmetry benefits me.
If the context is that someone needs me, or something I can provide, then their feelings toward me are not only irrelevant, but also hold no structural bearing on the utility I can extract from them. It is only when I am in the submissive position that these variables become important. In this context, the object or subject of my ire relies on being liked, seen, useful and a morally appropriate actor.
This is the precise reason why modelling did not fit into my plan. It did not offer the correct kind of visibility.
There was a variety of reasons why I terminated my modelling contract. One particular event had pushed me over the edge. I speak about it in passing as to not elicit legal issues. I have been threatened in the past by the same associates that they would drive me into bankruptcy if I do not omit names or if I speak too plainly about what occurred, but they have allowed me the space to vaguely describe the incident. Notice, I used the world allowed. I had a fitting for a certain company that falls under LVMH. The following occurred in the showroom: After the fitting, I spoke with the photographer who had told me that I may not be chosen for this specific campaign because while my measurements were desirable, my bust is simply too large for that certain brand. They prefer slender and a-line body types, where another house like Jacquemus (I love their designers!) prefers slender, but more rounded hips and fuller breasts. About a modest or even considerable C-cup. This is neither here nor there, the point is I was not going to get booked.
That was until, the photographer invited me out for dinner, with the other models of course and some of the stakeholders for said fashion house. At that dinner, I was offered to sell myself to a particular man and his associates to get the booking, and to generally just ascend in the modelling world.
At first, I giggled but he fixed the expression on his face to show he was serious.
“Oh, no thank you.” I’d politely decline,
“Well it wasn’t really a choice, you can do this or you’re not going to make it in this industry. And now you’re a liability.” He’d respond in his fucked up Parisian accent, smoking as he threatened me.
So I laughed, I quit and I have been erased from the modelling world. His offer is not what offended me though. And I did not deny him because of my morals. His approach was misguided, and he had miscalculated my pressure points. I don’t care about becoming a famous model, I didn’t then either, it was fun. Free vacations to Europe when it was miserably cold in Victoria. I didn’t care about the money either.
I rejected his offer and the modelling industry because it was below my metaphorical pay-grade. Money isn’t useful to me — Not in a meaningful way, I mean. Money is functional. I am content with my lifestyle. What I desire is influence, power, the ability to organise pockets of society as I see fit. Money is simply the symbol of power. It is those who truly create and sustain conditions that even confer money its legitimacy. If the offer was made in exchange for access to let’s say, a Getty or a Grosvenor, I would have obliged.
Luxury chairmen are low-hanging fruit for my societal ambitions.
In hindsight, one might believe that sleeping with the chairmen would naturally bring me to the likes of a Getty, but you are sadly mistaken. That would simply devalue me. What kind of powerful man wants sloppy seconds? It is not conducive to my long-term game to participate in sexual transactions with who is effectively a foot solider for a much higher authority. That is the modern equivalent of a betrothed Princess sleeping with the Kingsguard. It’s uncouth and very unbecoming.
And those are morally loaded adjectives I would readily abandon if I was offered the correct opportunity.
How willing are you? It is a question everyone should ask themselves. Not in the superficial way of, Oh if I am homeless, I might steal groceries. No, ask yourself truly, in the situation that you are comfortable, safe, already have your needs met and you are given ultimate, absolute power, how far would you be willing to go to retain it?
My boundary is children, lesser animals, murder, non-willing participants. That is it. These are the only boundaries between what I am willing, and non willing to do. I am not above killing, but I am above murder simply because death can be functional, but murder is always unnecessary.
Epstein and his associates are fundamentally incapable of drawing a line between predation and depravity. To him, and people like them, it is one and the same. There is no line. There is no boundary. There is no context in which they can see themselves as behaving badly. They are not only predators in the worst sense, but they are sanctimonious. They do not believe they have structurally or morally erred.
This is what self-annihilation is.
Epstein and his associates exemplify a form of self-annihilation that is invisible until one observes the architecture of their appetite.
By obliterating the line between predation and depravity, they dissolve the very frameworks that render a human being legible to others. To them, no act is morally or structurally wrong; everything is functional, everything is a transaction, everything is permissible within their self-contained ecosystem of power. And yet, in removing boundaries, they remove themselves from the human systems that sustain existence: social recognition, relational feedback, and moral reciprocity. Once the uncrossable boundary between predator and innocent is erased, the predator ceases to inhabit the world in any way that can be comprehended as human. They become a force of appetite unanchored from accountability, a machine for leverage with no exit or entrance in the realm of human morality.
Isolation is inevitable. The secrecy, the private islands, the networks of non-disclosure— all are attempts to maintain operational functionality in a system that no longer communicates with the human norms around it. This is why Epstein bought his island, why Ghislaine’s manoeuvres could not prevent eventual collapse, why Prince Andrew’s public appearance was so grotesquely unmoored and almost unrecognisable as human behaviour: because the act of erasing ethical limits annihilates the self relationally. Their collapse is both structural and performative.
Suicide, incarceration, silence, and disgrace are not punishments in the conventional sense— they are the mechanical consequences of self-eradication, the inevitable implosion of a being who has obliterated the very lines that define us as human. In operating without limits, they engineered their own disappearance from human legibility, from social negotiation, from morality itself, leaving behind only the shadow of appetite and the consequences that follow when no boundary exists to contain it.
“I reject that psychiatry attempts to sanitise the dark nature of human variation, …without confronting incentive structures.” 🔥🔥🔥
Good article Sabina.