Rape of the Innocents

I am not glued to the Epstein case but I do tune in now and then and one of the things that I found thought provoking was Epstein commissioning a copy of this particular painting to hang at the Zorro ranch in New Mexico.

It is titled The Massacre of the Innocents and was painted by the Dutch artist Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem in 1591.

It is a depiction from the Gospel of Matthew. 

The magi were searching for the newborn king of the Jews.

Fearful that he would be dethroned by this future king, Herod then ordered that all baby boys in Bethlehem under two years old be put to death by Roman soldiers.

Not hard to figure out why this one struck a chord with him.

A painting that depicts such depravity seems so fitting in the Caligula like atmosphere of Epsteinworld. Of course this sort of debauchery that takes place when rich and powerful figures feel like they are beyond the bounds of moral censure are not new. And as you can see, the antagonists came from both the left and right.

I even contributed to one of their Presidential campaigns, Bill Richardson's. A man I knew personally but who had also always been shadowed by these kinds of allegations.

My bad.

This sort of behavior is nothing new among the well connected. Benjamin Franklin was said to engage in similar acts of licentiousness at the Hellfire Club in England, which was a creation of his friend Sir Franklin Dashwood.

I read the names of the people who have come up in the investigation, Lauder, Richardson, Clinton, Woody Allen, all people with serious baggage in this regard, took particular joy in seeing Chomsky's name, a man I truly despise. Summers, Tisch, Wasserman, Bannon, a lot of very powerful chaps getting their poles waxed at one Epstein haunt or another.

Rich guys at their creepiest.

I keep thinking, where is Polanski, how did he not get an invitation? Or Jerry Lee Lewis?

*

Having said that, I also honestly have to say that many of the young girls that were exploited in these situations were probably paid very well and knew exactly what they were getting into and giving up for their participation.

They took the deal, yes, underage, but with eyes wide open and with full knowledge of what they were getting into. 

The younger generation is not necessarily as chaste or innocent as their forebears. when I worked the horse show circuits I met some very hard young ladies, one in particular had already had two abortions by the age of thirteen.

Getting to know her better, she was certainly young but in no way innocent.

I don't think these girls were kidnapped or raped but I could be wrong about that. More likely they were intoxicated by wealth and by consorting with the rich and powerful.

I get it, eighteen is the legal age of consent but sex among people younger than that has been flourishing for eternity. I am not justifying it in any way, old guys paying to play with young maidens can be really icky and is certainly illegal if they were truly underage.

But the responsibility probably ultimately extends to all parties here, albeit to a limited degree.