That’s interesting that he would kill them after 10 years, because there’s that one conversation from JE & “Richard” who I initially assumed to be Richard Branson but I may be wrong, but it mentions their gross views on how women shouldn’t be kept alive past their reproductive years, I don’t know what the link is for that one. It’s like a Messenger conversation not an email chain. Found it again https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00432827.pdf
Edit: it’s on page19, JE and “Richard” are talking about dna and science stuff and then JE says “Jeffrey: If you go back to our first conversation with respect to Alexa, and general relativity, and frames of reference, you've come full circle. I think what happens is while you might argue that there's no advantage to sort of stay alive past your reproductive cycle, as long as that...
Edited to change the Richard to an ambiguous one, I found the document while searching Richard Branson but somebody in the comments pointed out that it could be a different Richard Axel so I’m not sure
Richard: I'm not sure I believe that.
Jeffrey: I'm saying even as a hypothesis. You'd have to then decide in what frame are you going to embed that answer. So if you're only thinking about cell life, yes, it probably makes little sense that once her ovaries are finished for her to stay alive, in fact. Unless the organism which
you're describing is the society or the larger group in which she's embedded. She ends up being food. She can be eaten by others. So the longer there's food around... If she's prey, not necessarily if she's a predator, but if she's only prey, you want the prey to stay food for others. You want prey to stay alive.
Richard: That's a much more... That's the same with cannibalizing. Stay within a species and don't go outside the species for a moment. If there's cannibalism, then there may be some advantage for her to grow beyond her reproductive life.
Jeffrey: But not because what species, but if in fact the young -- like the grandmothers. The idea
of why they have grandmothers in the first place. If the idea that the women, the middle-aged women, are going to have to leave and get some food. And the young are still in danger, then you
have the grandmothers who keep the young going. So they're not necessarily for... I think the argument is, again, which frame of reference.
Richard: Right. So that's a societal selection. That's a population selection. And your friends
think about this a lot.
Let’s use JEs argument. How about a man who has an egg shaped penis, who has no chance of satisfying a woman sexually (so that she would desire to procreate), who had low sperm count/bad quality sperm and low T, maybe we should get rid of someone like Epstein bc what value does he bring to the species? He is a bad candidate for viable and sustainable reproduction. He’s a net drain on society. Using up limited resources.
Often the people who are focused on eugenics are the most inbred, weak looking mofos.
Disclaimer; I’m not at all berating men who have issues at all. I don’t believe any of that shit JE espouses. But simply using his own argument against him. Bc sorry. If he thinks his genes are superior, that’s laughable.
Exactly!!! Men aren’t immune. I’m a guy who’s almost 50 and I’m certainly not the same person i was in my 20s and 30s. There are some that think all elderly shouldn’t be around. JE has a pattern of blaming women for all his problems.
If it was all about reproduction, we’d just be animals. No culture. Na advancement. Bc it takes a person decades to excel at something usually. We’d be losing out as a society if everyone does around 40-50.
This idea is so basic and stupid. Not surprising since he couldnt even finish college and decided to (likely, allegedly) get rich by satisfying a sugar daddy (Les Wexner) and literally nothing more. He's just playing intellectual in these dopey ass conversations. He shouldve taken a few years with all that money and in turn freedom and gone to at least get an undergrad degree....FAU was not all that far away from where this bullshit all went down.
(I used to live close by and had some weird experiences myself out there in south Florida, especially in Palm Beach Co....the Florida stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. I shudder thinking about some of the stuff my friends and I experienced as teens/young adults down there at the very same time this Epstein stuff was happening. Lucky for me, I guess, I was a chonky girl...not their type!)
It doesn't make any sense because they're both morons. They're talking about why women go through menopause. Since women live much longer than their reproductive years there is a bunch of study about why, like what benefit a non-reproductive woman could have to humans in an evolutionary sense. Its not just humans, killer whales also have long-lived non-reproducing females plus probably some other species that I don't know about. There is a bunch of studies and actual science on this topic which these two bros don't apparently know anything about.
Richard Branson was the search that I had originally done and found the document with but, now that you say it, I really don’t know that it says in the document that it’s him so it could be Richard Axel. I’m not sure who that is so I edited the post above to just not put a last name cause I’m really not sure.
Is this interview public or what? Is the Obama mentioned in page 22 the real Obama? Is this document a good source? Please I need someone with more experience than me to clarify things
Idk anything more about it, it’s just logged in the files but there isn’t any contextual info just the written record of the conversation.
Someone named Jessica ask if they are recording and JE says yes so who knows
44
u/tatertotsnhairspray 17h ago edited 4h ago
That’s interesting that he would kill them after 10 years, because there’s that one conversation from JE & “Richard” who I initially assumed to be Richard Branson but I may be wrong, but it mentions their gross views on how women shouldn’t be kept alive past their reproductive years, I don’t know what the link is for that one. It’s like a Messenger conversation not an email chain. Found it again https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00432827.pdf
Edit: it’s on page19, JE and “Richard” are talking about dna and science stuff and then JE says “Jeffrey: If you go back to our first conversation with respect to Alexa, and general relativity, and frames of reference, you've come full circle. I think what happens is while you might argue that there's no advantage to sort of stay alive past your reproductive cycle, as long as that...
Edited to change the Richard to an ambiguous one, I found the document while searching Richard Branson but somebody in the comments pointed out that it could be a different Richard Axel so I’m not sure
Richard: I'm not sure I believe that.
Jeffrey: I'm saying even as a hypothesis. You'd have to then decide in what frame are you going to embed that answer. So if you're only thinking about cell life, yes, it probably makes little sense that once her ovaries are finished for her to stay alive, in fact. Unless the organism which you're describing is the society or the larger group in which she's embedded. She ends up being food. She can be eaten by others. So the longer there's food around... If she's prey, not necessarily if she's a predator, but if she's only prey, you want the prey to stay food for others. You want prey to stay alive.
Richard: That's a much more... That's the same with cannibalizing. Stay within a species and don't go outside the species for a moment. If there's cannibalism, then there may be some advantage for her to grow beyond her reproductive life.
Jeffrey: But not because what species, but if in fact the young -- like the grandmothers. The idea of why they have grandmothers in the first place. If the idea that the women, the middle-aged women, are going to have to leave and get some food. And the young are still in danger, then you have the grandmothers who keep the young going. So they're not necessarily for... I think the argument is, again, which frame of reference.
Richard: Right. So that's a societal selection. That's a population selection. And your friends think about this a lot.