Friends With a Monster
Does closeness imply complicity?
Jeffrey Epstein trapped many in his web.
He blemished some of the most powerful individuals in the world for life. Some of them participated; others did not. Epstein was an evil man, but what about those next to him?
How near to a monster do you have to be to become one?
Being close to a criminal does not make you a criminal.
It is not enough to confirm complicity. In elite circles, adjacency to shady characters is somewhat unavoidable. Hence, there are many photos of Epstein next to well-known figures.
But only a number of them were complicit.
It is useful to ask where complicity begins.
For the outraged mob, mere closeness is enough. But that alone does not warrant demonization. It is conceivable that many of Epstein’s associates knew, but it is impossible that all of them did.
Adjacency is not sufficient.
Knowledge of the crimes, however, might be enough.
Some people knew what Epstein was up to, yet they continued to associate with him regardless. That constitutes a deliberate choice. Those who knew carry responsibility, even if they did not participate.
Wilful blindness is a vice. It forms the bridge between ignorance and enabling.
In Epstein’s case, those who looked away picked self-preservation over justice.
At its mildest, that implies opportunism.
At its worst, it implies criminality. Those who normalized him helped sustain Epstein’s mask. They provided sheepskin to the wolf.
Even if their survival depended on it, such individuals can accurately be described as selfish.
But they were likely in denial.
Knowing you are dead wrong while pretending otherwise typically requires mental gymnastics. Witnesses may have told themselves there was nothing they could do. Or that it was up to someone else.
But through their silence, they implied Epstein’s innocence, and that helped the sickness to spread.
Self-preservation instincts often enable crime.
This aids in explaining what happened. But it cannot justify it. Those who prioritized their survival over the redemption of the victims bear a degree of guilt.
Refusal to acknowledge the truth constitutes a quiet lie. It obstructs outward discernment so that the malevolence remains hidden from view.
That allows for it to continue unchecked.
Sustaining a villain’s mirage enables his evil.
It protects him against outside intervention. That is why Epstein surrounded himself with prominent figures. He depended on their reputations to whitewash his image.
As has become clear, such an image does not preclude being amoral.
But that also relates to Epstein’s bystanders.
Even if they did not directly commit crimes, maybe they were aware of the wrongdoings. Maybe they continued to associate with him despite them. For personal gain, or the prevention of personal loss.
The issue is not how close they were to Epstein. It is whether, through their closeness, they shielded what he did.
The bystander who veils what happened has allowed the crime to work through him.
That is the crux.
Indeed, proximity to a villain does not make you one.
But if you shut your eyes and pretend he is a saint, it makes you a liar at least. Your silence enables his malevolence by pretending it does not exist. That keeps him in business.
Epstein’s story is a reminder of this problem. Sometimes, the most insidious form of complicity is the refusal to see.
The whistleblower jeopardizes his life, but the accomplice jeopardizes his soul.