【By Observer Net Columnist Shen Yi】
Today, we will discuss the Epstein case, which has once again attracted widespread attention due to the release of a new batch of materials.
Let me start with a small anecdote. When I first saw the related news on "Russia Today," I specifically reminded the editor: Did you make a mistake? Was it "300 pages" or "3 million pages"? The editor confirmed that it was 3 million pages — this is just the documents part, and if we include photos, videos, and other materials, the total is about 6 million pages. Someone gave me a metaphor: 3 million A4 sheets stacked up would be about 3,000 meters high. This physical scale may help us understand the "volume" of this case.
The timeline of this case is long. The first investigation started in 2005, when Florida received an alarm and began investigating Epstein. Three years later, in 2008, Epstein reached an agreement with the prosecutors, admitted two charges of "soliciting prostitution of minors," and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, actually serving 13 months. About ten years later, in July 2019, Epstein was arrested again, charged with "conspiracy to kidnap and sexually assault minor females," with a maximum possible sentence of 45 years. However, less than a month after this arrest, he died in a New York prison, officially recognized as a suicide.
After another three years, in June 2022, co-defendant and Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for trafficking girls for sexual exploitation. Since 2024, documents related to this case have been gradually released. But please note a key piece of information: the U.S. Attorney General has publicly and clearly stated that based on existing evidence, no new criminal charges will be filed.
What does this mean? From a criminal perspective, two people were caught in this case: the main offender Epstein died in prison "by suicide"; the accomplice Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years. However, the public's most concerned individuals — those suspected of sexually assaulting minors — will not face criminal prosecution.
At the same time, a large number of civil lawsuits are ongoing. The estate management of Epstein has paid approximately $125 million in compensation, covering over 200 women who filed claims. This is a characteristic of the U.S. judicial system: civil compensation provides a relatively fast resolution path, avoiding lengthy criminal trials, but it also means that these "clients" are exempt from judicial accountability. Even some institutions that had business dealings with Epstein also took responsibility, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, which paid $290 million in settlement after Epstein's first conviction, continuing its business relationship with him.
Regarding the published documents, one point must be clear: the more than 3 million pages currently released are only half of the total. These contents are mixed, including a large number of unverified accusations. However, what is exposed here is a core issue: for such cases, we usually expect the national legal system to investigate and prosecute in the interest of the public to seek justice. However, the path shown by this case is: catch two "front-line figures," and then give victims two options — either go through a long and indefinite criminal trial, or settle through civil litigation.
U.S. Department of Justice
From an objective communication effect perspective, the recent developments are worth reflection. This way of releasing information is essentially a very American operation. Here, the judiciary is completely instrumentalized, its main purpose is not to protect the vulnerable or maintain social ethical standards, but to serve a clear, direct, and even cruel American political and governance logic.
This is mainly reflected in two aspects:
First, political deals. Why now, in this way, to release a mass of confusing "materials"? This itself is a political calculation. For example, former President Clinton and his wife have been called to testify before Congress. You can reasonably imagine that these materials and the social dissatisfaction they provoke will become trading chips in American bipartisan politics — whether it's the upcoming midterm elections or the 2028 presidential election, relevant political forces may engage in private negotiations and interest exchanges around these materials.
Second, this is a typical American low-human-rights governance logic: you want the truth? I'll give you information, and it's massive, mixed with truth and falsehood, making your information processing ability completely overwhelmed. The public can only grasp fragments and details, and carry out a round of "carnival-style" emotional outbursts in the public opinion field. Eventually, these emotions do not lead to problem-solving, but instead generate more label-based conspiracy theories, urban legends, and false information, leading different groups into a bottom-level mutual harm debate.
A typical case is the widely circulated photo of "chicken with a mosaic." In fact, it's clear: the photo has a watermark in the lower right corner, and it's the only image with a watermark in the PDF file released by the Department of Justice. It is actually an art photo created by a male erotic performance artist based on vegetarianism ideology, and the mosaic in the middle is a standard handling for "18+" content. However, someone deliberately cropped the watermark and only showed the middle part, accompanied by a provocative question, thus creating a wave of highly sensational but completely off-the-track gossip discussion.
This is the embodiment of its governance logic: let the public quarrel and vent in fragmented information until exhausted. When someone asks, just calmly respond, "insufficient evidence, it's just an art photo." Once the public attention fades, the public's attention will naturally be taken away by new hot topics. The whole process is like "lying flat and giving up," without even the basic pretense of dressing up — the procedure is completed, the documents are given, you "freely discuss" it, what else do you want?
As for whether Epstein is connected with Israeli intelligence agencies or other deeper truths, no one is pursuing it anymore. Because the "procedural justice" process has been completed, and what it shows is the real operational state of the American legal system.
From this, we can at least clarify several issues:
First, why are there so many conspiracy theories and urban legends in the United States?
The answer might be: all problems are institutional problems. The original design of this system was to "protect freedom," but the reality is to protect the freedom of the wealthy. When you have enough assets or enter a specific circle, you can obtain some "extra-legal privileges." We see some European officials resigning under pressure because they appeared on the related list, which is a political solution, but not the extension of judicial justice. After this incident, the filter of the American judicial system, which is supposed to be the guardian of social fairness and justice in the long-term soft power expansion and ideological propaganda, has already been partially broken, even if not completely shattered. These people can be above the law, escape legal punishment, and especially enjoy "procedural justice."
Second, whose interests does the American law serve?
The answer is clear: it serves capital and the wealthy. This leads to an objective fact: the wealthy can commit sexual abuse against minors on an island and get away with it, paying only civil compensation. This also explains why in Western films and TV series, crimes committed by the elite often rely on "private justice" and violent retaliation rather than the law. Further, the tendency of the Western legal circles towards "lighter criminal penalties" is also related to this: the lighter the criminal law, the easier it is for the wealthy to resolve issues with money and gain actual extra-legal privileges.
There is no doubt that from the perspective of legal values, this system should not be a model for us to learn and emulate, but rather a negative example, warning us not to allow such logic to erode our own judicial system.
Furthermore, what is the connection between the Epstein case and the previously widely discussed concept of the "killing line"?
In my view, both together depict the dark side of the "lighthouse." For ordinary people who cannot enter Epstein's "Lolita Island" circle, they face great insecurity and anxiety under the "killing line" mechanism, struggling to survive. On the other hand, the elite class, relying on wealth and power, can act above the law, like gods in the sky or demons in the sub-space, doing whatever they want. This mechanism is deeply embedded in the power structure of the West.
For example, could Epstein's parties be free of drugs (in the U.S. context of "drugs")? Some photos clearly show pills. But has anyone seriously investigated the source and abuse of drugs? No. This further explains why the U.S. drug control system has never dared to truly touch the demand side — the lower-class people may fall into drug abuse traps due to pain and lack of health insurance; while the upper-class elites use drugs "for fun," and even escape criminal liability for sexual abuse of minors. Who has the motivation to govern their drug demands? Thus, we see a more complete "dark picture" of the "lighthouse": the lower class struggles under the "killing line," while the upper class enjoys a life beyond the law. This mechanism is deeply rooted in the power structure of the West.
Epstein is essentially a power broker, running a huge, brotherhood-like power network. Being on the list is somewhat like a "pledge of loyalty" or a credential for the circle. An interesting detail is that the current president has a poor relationship with the previous Federal Reserve Chair Powell, and Powell has not appeared on the list of publicly released materials so far; but the new chair appointed by him "happens" to appear on the list.
Facing criticism, Western media like British Sky News would throw out the standard "professionalism" rhetoric: "Being on the list does not mean it is illegal." This "correct nonsense" leaves people speechless, akin to the phrase "I have never seen such shameless people." They do not question the investigative responsibilities of the judicial system, but only emphasize "procedural correctness." What is the cost? Loss of credibility, social disorder, public disappointment, and group division. But apparently, no one cares. In the decision-makers' view, this might be their governance model: using chaos among the lower classes and sacrificing government credibility to maintain a cold, minimal order. In their view, everything can be resolved with money — "You want justice? Tell me how much it costs."
This continuous lowering of the bottom line and "information pollution" operation has long-term effects of confusion. In the future, when people discuss the Epstein case, someone might point to the distorted art photo and say, "This is fake, so all related accusations are fake." They use individual details of distortion to deny the existence of the overall issue. The strategy of this system is not to improve governance levels, but to constantly lower public expectations. After expectations are lowered, even if the current situation is bad, it appears "acceptable" by comparison.
The result is that many observers have noticed the apathy, insensitivity, and helplessness of the American people. Because they have no real choice. If you choose this system, the result of a case like the Epstein case is inevitable. This deconstructs the condescending "American civilization preaching" — your strength may be supported by advanced technology, but the cost you pay could be the loss of humanity, the trampling of dignity, and the complete breakdown of morality — you have nothing to do with "civilization."
Even those celebrities appearing on the list have seen their public reputation collapse, and no one really cares to maintain the image of the "free world lighthouse" in the U.S. It is ironic that today, serious discussions about this case are mostly conducted by many Chinese people.
Former U.S. President Clinton frequently appears in documents related to the Epstein case
The disappointment of the American people is deep, which also explains the "North American cowardice" behavior in the "Minnesota incident" — Chinese netizens asked, "Why don't you resist?" After resisting, what can you get — no ideological guidelines, lack of organization and education, and the resistance eventually becomes "gun is stationery" "lower-class mutual harm," or turns into individual revenge "Luigi-type" events, which are quickly consumed by traffic and politicians, unable to bring systemic change. Everything falls into a low-morality or even anti-morality, like whispers in the sub-space, chaotic cycle. For the American people, this is deep despair and helplessness.
Then, from the perspective of the Chinese people? I believe that any rational Chinese person today would have a simple thought: lucky I was not born in America. Fortunately, this happened under their system. This makes us more determined in the conclusion: only socialism can save China, and only the Communist Party of China can lead China. Without such a party, system, and path design, no one can escape the trap and dilemma of the development model represented by the United States.
From the "big reckoning" discussion in early 2023 about "drinking coffee and finding blood," to the end of the year's "killing line" concept providing a new perspective to examine American society, and then to the opening of the Epstein files at the beginning of 2024 — we are systematically seeing the backside and dark side of this "lighthouse" through a level or even a superior perspective: from the "killing line" at the bottom to the "Lolita Island" at the top, a complete map is gradually becoming clear.
Some say that at this node of international system transformation and the alternation of old and new orders, such events have given us a more comprehensive and clear understanding of the true logic of the world's operation. Although there may be shocks and complex feelings, ultimately, we will have a clearer, more explicit, and more firm understanding of the road under our feet and the direction of development.
For China, this is a symbolic moment in the process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The cases of the outside world help us understand the world more deeply and clarify our mission and direction. This may be one of the greatest insights we can gain from the Epstein case. At least, that's how it is for me. I hope it can be enlightening for everyone.
This article is exclusive to Observer Net. The content of this article is purely the personal views of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow the WeChat of Observer Net, guanchacn, to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7602787840946094642/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.