A System Rotten to the Core

"When meat rots, maggots appear; when fish dries, worms breed; when one grows complacent and forgets oneself, disaster follows." These words from Xunzi's chapter "Encouraging Learning" could not be more apt as a description of America's Epstein scandal. No one could have imagined that the American system had decayed to such a degree.

During the recent Winter Olympics, Western reporters pressed Eileen Gu – who competed for China – for her views on the Jimmy Lai case and the so-called Xinjiang genocide. When she declined to comment, she was savaged by American television hosts. The irony is glaring: Americans fixate on an alleged Xinjiang genocide that exists only in fiction, yet turn a blind eye to the Epstein scandal erupting right before their eyes. Why did no reporter press Eileen Gu for her views on the Epstein case?

Former Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom has finally been arrested. The British royal family had long known of Andrew's criminal involvement in the Epstein affairs, yet only distanced themselves from him in October last year – and the government has only now taken action. How remarkably swift. Had they acted with the same urgency they showed over the Jimmy Lai case, Prince Andrew would surely be behind bars already. The ancient saying – "the law does not reach the privileged; propriety does not extend to the common folk" – finds yet another confirmation in the West.

America has partially declassified over three million pages of documents related to the Epstein case. While the files appear to give the Trump administration some leeway, the contents are already horrifying. The documents implicate sitting and former American presidents, European royalty, business titans, religious leaders, and leading academics – the filth on display is truly beyond description.

We see that Thorbjørn Jagland – former Prime Minister of Norway and former chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee – continued to maintain close ties with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, to the point where Epstein could effectively influence who received the Nobel Prize. We also see how Larry Summers – former US Treasury Secretary and former president of Harvard University – discussed with Epstein the art of womanising.

Even more shocking is that among those closely associated with Epstein was Noam Chomsky, widely regarded as the father of American linguistics. Long considered a public intellectual – a philosopher who spent his entire life teaching people how to challenge the powerful – Chomsky himself turns out to be one of the very corrupt elites he claimed to oppose. The Dalai Lama is also part of this picture. Given that Western journalists show such keen interest in Xinjiang, one wonders why they show no similar zeal for Tibet – or for relentlessly pursuing the scandal surrounding the Dalai Lama's connections to Epstein.

The shocking secrets unearthed by the Epstein case go far beyond the mere operation of a prostitution ring.

First – Even Worse Crimes

The public's greatest suspicion surrounding the Epstein case is this: while the scandal exposed that Epstein used underage girls for prostitution on his private island – known as "Lolita Island" – those powerful men involved could have easily arranged their own channels had they simply wanted to pay for sex. There was no need for such elaborate orchestration.

According to a source who was incarcerated alongside Epstein in the United States, what truly drew America's powerful elites to Epstein was not his sex operation, but his promise of eternal youth. While stem cell therapies have long been banned in America, academic research had apparently shown that injections of stem cell extracts could restore youthful vitality. The rumour goes that Epstein arranged for these elites to father children with the girls on the island, then extract stem cells from their own biological offspring and inject them into themselves – since the children shared their DNA, there would be no immune rejection. 

This same source also claimed that just days before Epstein's so-called "suicide," he had spoken with Epstein, who was in high spirits with absolutely no signs of suicidal intent – lending weight to the suspicion that Epstein “was suicided."

With this explosive secret now in the open, and with Epstein dead and vast quantities of evidence suppressed by US authorities, the matter has become an unsolvable case.

However, emails released by the US Department of Justice show that Epstein generously funded Harvard University, much of it directed at biological research – including work by renowned genomics pioneer George Church. Church had outlined to Epstein a research programme totalling US$10 million, to be implemented across 10 phases. Among the projects was one called "Supercentenarianstudy.com" (a centenarian research project), alongside research into creating virus-resistant animals through gene editing, reversing the ageing process, and producing "cold-resistant elephants." It is clear that Epstein had an intense interest in age reversal.

If this scheme – harvesting stem cells from the elites' own biological offspring – were true, every powerful individual who participated would have committed murder and numerous other grave crimes. With evidence of their crimes firmly in the hands of Epstein and the network behind him, manipulating these elites would have been effortless.

Second – Who Is Behind It All?

The same source noted that Epstein was no ordinary figure. His girlfriend came from a foreign intelligence family, and the entire Epstein operation was funded by that country. The whole affair was a deliberate setup – a carefully orchestrated operation built around an island offering sex and the promise of eternal youth, designed to lure the Western elite – primarily Americans – into participating, then using evidence of their crimes to control their political behaviour. This explains why in the United States, regardless of whether it is the Democratic or Republican Party, there is invariably a unified and unconditional stance whenever issues relating to that country arise.

Third – The Collapse of a System

In American Hollywood films, we are always presented with a principled hero who risks his life to fight the powerful and ultimately triumphs – a happy ending. Reality, however, is precisely the opposite: the West tells you to stand on principle while having none of its own.

 Britain has now arrested former Prince Andrew on a charge of mere "misconduct in public office" – suspected of leaking British trade documents to Epstein. Even for that offence, he could have been charged under the Official Secrets Act, which would have been far more serious. Of course, Virginia Giuffre – the woman who accused the former prince of sexual assault – reached an out-of-court settlement with him in 2020, collecting US$12 million. Although she never took the case to trial, she continued to allege that the former prince had engaged in sexual relations with eight underage girls who could not speak English – a far graver criminal allegation. Last April, 41-year-old Giuffre "died by suicide" in Australia. This brings to mind the case of Princess Diana, who met her end in a car crash amid royal scandal – a death that many still believe was no ordinary accident.

Britain devotes so much energy to meddling in the Jimmy Lai case and Hong Kong's democratic development, when it should really put its own house in order – abolishing its feudal and rotten monarchy before it can claim to be a truly modern state.

As for America's continuing effort to export its own model of democracy worldwide – that is even more laughable. America need not lecture us on how to prevent the next Epstein scandal, because it appears genuinely impossible to prevent under the American system. What America needs to answer is how to prevent the forces behind the Epstein affair from being exploited to manipulate American politicians – and I cannot think of any satisfactory answer it could give. In a system this rotten, no one is ever held accountable.

As the Gospel of Matthew so aptly puts it: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The United States today is undeniably far less impressive than it was 40 years ago.

Back in 1983, when I was in college, a political science class focused specifically on the US government’s successful decision-making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Harvard professor Graham Allison, later renowned for his theory of Thucydides Trap - The Rise of Great Powers, published a detailed article analyzing how the US managed to resolve this severe crisis so swiftly.
 
In 1962, at the height of the US-Soviet Cold War, the Soviets planned to deploy ballistic missiles in Cuba, right next to the US, in response to America’s missile deployments in Italy and Turkey. Then-President John F. Kennedy boldly imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, showing extraordinary courage and resolve. His actions ultimately forced the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles. Allison praised the US decision-making in that episode as a model of democracy combined with high efficiency.
 
Those were truly America’s golden years. Kennedy became president at 43, successfully defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was assassinated just a year later at the age of 45. The prevailing US view then was that socialist regimes produced only aging leadership and could never match the youthful energy and efficiency of the capitalist system.
 
Time has marched on. The country once led by young leaders is now locked in the hands of elders. President Donald Trump is 79, older than Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev when he died at 75—someone the US once criticized fiercely. Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran is widely judged by scholars at home and abroad as a costly misstep.
 
Bloomberg reported on April 8 that Trump’s military action against the Iranian regime proved "a serious strategic failure." Rather than weakening rivals, it bolstered China and Russia, eroded America’s advantages, and ultimately positioned Iran as the strategic winner. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains intact, Iran keeps control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the US "failed to achieve any military objectives."
 
The New York Times published a detailed feature on April 7 titled "How Trump Pulled the US Into a War With Iran." The report uncovers the inner workings of the decision and shows how, amid internal disagreements and repeated warnings, Trump ultimately chose war based largely on intuition. White House reporters Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman tracked this process closely. They highlight a pivotal moment on February 11, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House and aggressively pitched the plan to attack Iran in the White House Situation Room.
 
During a one-hour briefing, Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea pressed Trump hard. They argued Iran was vulnerable to regime change and that a combined US-Israeli strike could topple the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu outlined what they saw as near-certain conditions for victory, including:
 
1. Destroying Iran’s ballistic missile program within weeks;
 
2. Weakening the Iranian regime enough to prevent it from blockading the Strait of Hormuz;
 
Third, the chance of Iran hitting US interests through neighboring countries was judged extremely low;
 
Fourth, street protests within Iran would flare again, and with Israeli intelligence agencies stirring things up, intense bombing could create an opening for Iranian opposition forces to topple the regime;
 
Fifth, Israel also suggested that Iranian Kurdish armed groups might cross from Iraq into Iran to open a ground front.
 
Trump responded at the time, saying, "Sounds good."
 
The day after the meeting—February 12—a briefing was held in the White House Situation Room with only US officials attending, who divided Netanyahu's proposals into four parts:

First, a decapitation strike—the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei;
 
Second, to weaken Iran's missile projection capabilities and its threats to neighboring countries;
 
Third, to spark large-scale protests among the Iranian people;
 
Fourth, regime change, with a secular leader taking control of Iran.
 
US officials judged that the first two objectives could be achieved through American intelligence and military power. However, the third and fourth goals promoted by Netanyahu—mass protests and regime change—are divorced from reality.
 
CIA Director Ratcliffe called the "fantasy of regime change" absurd and laughable. Secretary of State Rubio bluntly dismissed it as "complete nonsense." The top military leader, Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine, told Trump, "In my experience, this is basically Israel’s usual play—they tend to exaggerate, but their plans aren’t always flawless."
 
However, Trump remained interested in the first two objectives: a decapitation strike and weakening Iran's military strength.
 
In the days that followed, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine presented Trump with a stark military assessment. He warned that a large-scale strike against Iran would severely deplete US weapons stockpiles, including interceptor missiles already strained by support for Israel and Ukraine. Caine also highlighted the risks of Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz and the enormous challenges the US would face in securing the Gulf region.
 
Trump dismissed these warnings, convinced the Iranian regime would surrender before such consequences materialized. He was likely influenced by the previous year's US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, expecting this war to be just as brief.
 
Nevertheless, Trump was increasingly resolved to strike Iran. Meanwhile, peace talks between the US and Iran were still underway. The turning point came in late February, when new intelligence from US and Israeli agencies revealed that Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei and other senior officials would soon meet in a ground-level building. This would leave Khamenei fully exposed to an airstrike—an opportunity US and Israeli officials believed was fleeting and unlikely to recur.
 
On February 26, the White House Situation Room convened for a final discussion. Many expressed doubts about going to war, including Vice President Vance, who told Trump, “You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine withheld clear endorsement and focused on risk warnings. The strongest advocate was Defense Secretary Esper, who argued if the Iran issue is going to be resolved sooner or later, better to do it now. Ultimately, Trump made the strike decision impulsively, relying on his gut instinct.

The New York Times report exposes critical flaws in decision-making at the highest levels of the United States government. Although most advisors believed striking Iran was unwise, no one dared truly oppose Trump’s imperial-style leadership. Trump behaved like a stubborn, glory-seeking elder focused only on immediate gains—much like a retail investor chasing quick profits in the stock market. His choice dragged the US into a deep quagmire it still struggles to escape. Forty years ago, the US criticized socialist countries for flawed decision-making; today, those same issues have surfaced within America itself.

Lo Wing-hung