Epstein Defiled Your Most Sacred Values and You Will Do Nothing
By Colonial
The recent disclosures surrounding the Epstein files have produced a spectacle at once nauseating and predictable. Few among our countrymen are anything but disgusted with what has been revealed. The documents confirm suspicions long harbored in private conversation, that men of prominence and influence indulged in corruption so grotesque that it mocks the very notion of leadership. Yet after the initial convulsion of outrage, a more sobering recognition settles upon the mind. Nothing will be done. Not because the crimes are trifling, nor because the public lacks indignation, but because no man, however animated his temper, possesses the means to effect meaningful redress.
This is the first truth that must be faced without ornament. From the humblest laborer to the occupant of the highest office, each individual is constrained by an apparatus so vast and impersonal that personal will dissipates upon contact with it. The English royal household may endure humiliation. Certain names may be dragged through inquiry and litigation. Commentators will declaim, crowds will lament, and then the machinery of society will resume its accustomed rhythm. The lesson absorbed by future predators will not be one of deterrence but of adaptation. They will observe that scandal can be weathered, that embarrassment fades, and that the structure itself remains intact.
Among men of martial temperament this impotence provokes a particularly bitter agitation. The instinct to punish, to strike, to exact blood for blood, is not easily extinguished. It arises from the same source that once impelled tribes to defend their kin and kingdoms to avenge insult. One can almost feel the tightening of the jaw, the hand imagining the weight of steel. Meanwhile our women, animated by a different but no less sincere sense of injustice, immerse themselves in a ceaseless stream of commentary and revelation, each new detail amplifying their distress. Public voices skilled in the commerce of outrage instruct us how furious we ought to be, and we comply. We are angry. We are indignant. We are resolved in speech.
But we do nothing.
The reason is not cowardice, though cowardice is always available as an explanation convenient to those who prefer moral simplicity to structural analysis. The reason is futility. Suppose, in a fever of righteous wrath, a band of men were to seize upon those rumored to have participated in these crimes. Suppose they invoked ancient notions of frontier justice and executed their own sentence. What would follow? The state would respond with overwhelming force. The actors would be arrested, tried, confined. Their protest would be reduced to a criminal episode. Their names would recede into obscurity or be memorialized only as a cautionary tale. The system they sought to challenge would not tremble. It would harden.
Even those commonly imagined to be untouchable elites demonstrate the same vulnerability to the impersonal order. Consider one of the few Epstein associates to endure any consequence: disgraced Prince Andrew, subjected to legal jeopardy and public contempt for bedding a 17 year-old; conduct that in former centuries would scarcely have elicited a whisper within aristocratic circles. One need not defend the morality of past ages to observe the contrast. Dynasties once contracted marriages at ages now deemed scandalous. Yet in the present dispensation wealth, lineage, and title have not insulated a royal figure from consequence. The humiliation has been global, the censure relentless. If such a man cannot defy the prevailing currents, who then commands them?
Here lies the unsettling conclusion. The so called powerful elites, when examined closely, do not constitute a sovereign class in the classical sense. They are prominent nodes within a diffuse and amorphous order that tolerates them only so long as they harmonize with its imperatives. They enjoy privilege within the structure but do not transcend it. When their actions conflict too starkly with the moral narrative required by the system, they are sacrificed. The ritual serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the whole. Neither they, nor you experience anything like the sovereignty of our fathers.
This impersonal order, this blob, does not reside in a single chamber or council. It is an aggregation of institutions, bureaucracies, financial networks, media organs, and cultural reflexes. No individual mind directs it in its entirety. It persists through shared incentives and mutual reinforcement. Those who align with its expectations advance. Those who defy it encounter resistance so comprehensive that resistance appears suicidal. Thus every man, whether he sweeps the streets or signs executive orders, finds his choices constrained within boundaries he did not draw.
In such a condition sovereignty becomes illusory. The ancient image of the autonomous man, master of his fate and architect of his household and polity, dissolves under scrutiny. One either conforms sufficiently to be incorporated into the blob, enjoying its protections at the price of independence, or one is marginalized, prosecuted, deplatformed, or otherwise neutralized. Even death does not escape assimilation, for the narrative of the dissenter is absorbed, interpreted, and repurposed to fortify the system he opposed.
Thus, spasms of public anger are not merely ineffective but serve a secondary function. They vent pressure without altering structure. They create the impression of participation while leaving the underlying configuration untouched. The citizen feels engaged, morally aligned with justice, yet the nameless apparatus remains sovereign.
What then remains to us? Despair is one option, but it is neither honorable nor strategically sound. A more disciplined response begins by abandoning the fantasy of seizing the entire structure. No individual or spontaneous mob can conquer a system so interwoven with daily life. The alternative is incremental sovereignty. One must identify domains, however modest, in which genuine control can be exercised. Servers, phones, laptops, property, enterprise, family governance, local association, these constitute the initial territories of autonomy.
Yet isolated autonomy is fragile. A single man commanding a single domain is easily surrounded. Therefore men who possess control over discrete spaces must discover one another and establish bonds that transcend mere acquaintance. This is a call to serious association. Loyalty must be cultivated as a practiced virtue. Trust cannot be assumed on the basis of shared rhetoric. It must be tested through action, sacrifice, and time.
Such networks cannot exist solely in the digital ether. The online world is a tool of coordination but also of surveillance and misdirection. Men who have never clasped hands, never looked eye to eye, never shared labor or endured hardship together, cannot plausibly claim the depth of allegiance required for true allegiance. The willingness to hazard one’s safety for another arises from embodied experience, not from avatars and encrypted messages alone.
Clandestine means discreet, selective, and disciplined. The blob is adept at detecting open threats to its primacy. Loud declarations invite swift containment. Quiet construction of parallel capacity is less conspicuous. When individual men with even a little sovereignty gather to build enterprise, train their bodies for war, educate their children, and coordinate mutual aid, they create nodes of resilience and a counter structure begins to form.
Commitment of this order is not sentimental. It is proven only when men accept that loyalty may demand hardship, loss of comfort, loss of reputation, and in the extremity even loss of life. Words and shared grievances are insufficient. A fraternity worthy of the name is forged when each member knows that the others will stand firm when standing firm carries a cost. Hardship borne together creates a cohesion that no manifesto can supply. The same severity must animate any effort at reclaimed sovereignty. Without a settled willingness to endure suffering for one another, associations dissolve at the first sign of danger or are quietly purchased by convenience.
None of this promises swift vindication for the crimes exposed in scandalous files. Justice in the theatrical sense may remain elusive for some time. Yet sovereignty, even partial and local, alters the strategic landscape. A man embedded in a network of loyal peers, commanding resources and commanding respect within a defined sphere, is less susceptible to total absorption. He cannot overturn the blob overnight, but it can be overturned.
In time, if enough such networks arise and maintain discipline, the balance of power shifts subtly. The blob thrives on fragmentation and isolation. It struggles against cohesive groups that neither seek its approval nor rely exclusively upon its structures. The path is arduous and unglamorous. It lacks the catharsis of immediate public vengeance. It demands patience, discretion, and the subordination of ego to fraternity and aristocracy.
The revelations that so inflame the public conscience may therefore serve an unintended purpose. They expose not only moral corruption but structural impotence. They reveal that outrage without organization is noise, and that organization without loyalty is theater. If men of resolve draw the correct lesson, they will cease waiting for distant authorities to purge the system and will instead undertake the slower labor of constructing domains in which their word carries weight. Certainly, I have been so motivated. I write these words as much to inform my own plan as to aid others with theirs. The time for public vengeance and violent action will come as they always do eventually, but only if we've built positions of real sovereignty from which to act.
If this blog resonates with you and you're ready to use the tools discussed herein, contact me. We need to build a future of sovereignty. I've created a private space to further discuss how this might be done. Use Signal or Threema to contact me for access.
