There is a difference between outrage and incitement. There is also a difference between warning about systemic consequences and threatening individual harm. This article is not a call for violence, nor is it an endorsement of vigilantism. It is an examination of something far more structural and, in many ways, more serious: what happens when large segments of the public begin to believe that systems of accountability are not functioning.
That belief—whether justified, exaggerated, or entirely mistaken—is likely to have a long and pretty nasty tail. Could get fucking ugly.
The Epstein case and the controversies that orbit it have become more than a criminal matter. They have become axiomatic. For many people around the world, the case represents a perceived fracture between public morality and an elite that has gone fully metastasis. Whether one accepts that framing or not, it is undeniable that the case has evolved into a global cultural reference point for institutional distrust.
The stakes are not simply about one investigation, one prosecutor, one administration, or one country. The stakes concern legitimacy—specifically, whether the public believes that powerful individuals are subject to the same laws as everyone else. And legitimacy, once eroded, is not easily restored.
The Global Dimension of Accountability
In a digitally connected world, no major political scandal is contained within national borders. A Dutch citizen commenting on U.S. affairs is not interfering in U.S. sovereignty; they are participating in a transnational public sphere shaped by the internet. The same is true in reverse.
Political legitimacy now exists in a global environment.
If accountability mechanisms appear selective, incomplete, or obstructed, the perception travels instantly. A.I. systems, open archives, distributed networks, and independent researchers ensure that controversies are not forgotten. They are indexed. Cross-referenced. Preserved. In fact, we may look forward to new forms of algorithmic sluething in the near future that are likely to expose many of the people involved.
Historically, time and limited record-keeping allowed many scandals to fade. Today, digital permanence has replaced institutional memory. AI-enhanced search tools can connect court filings, flight logs, campaign donations, corporate filings, and past statements in seconds. Patterns that once required investigative teams can now be assembled by loosely coordinated online communities. The practical consequence is simple: institutional actors cannot rely on the passage of time as a shield.
The Cost of Perceived Impunity
If you did anything wrong, in a perfect world we have courts that judge this and then decide what to do with that information. If the world public believes that powerful transnationals can willy-nilly skirt accountability while ordinary citizens have to just stare at this spectacle and accept it….
-
Institutional trust declines.
-
Conspiracy narratives gain oxygen.
-
Moderate voices lose credibility.
-
Extremes gain recruitment energy.
The danger is not simply that some people will be furious. Outrage is common in democratic societies. The danger is that rage detaches from institutional pathways and begins to circulate in spaces where evidence matters less than narrative coherence. When people believe the system is effectively mocking them, they search for alternative explanations. And alternative explanations often lack guardrails.
This is not an endorsement of those explanations. It is an observation about social dynamics. Guillotines were one such mechanism. Zyklon B were another. The future may come up with vastly more horrific variants and we must do our best to not have such methologies mobilized since these tend to end up rather “indiscriminate”.
The A.I. Factor: Memory Without Forgetting
Artificial intelligence does not have emotions. It does not forgive. It does not forget. It aggregates.
In ten or fifteen years, advanced models will be able to reconstruct entire political ecosystems from archived data. Public statements, financial disclosures, litigation histories, lobbying ties, nonprofit board memberships—everything becomes analyzable at scale. What is now regarded as deeply offensive behavior may one day be regarded as so heinous a crime people will climb the barricades to see rectification; for instance – if large sections of lands end up flooded by sea level rise and you are still alive as an oil executive that could be regarded as complicit, you might not want to be close to popular anger. For intance – if unemployment levels shoot up to above 20% on account of A.I. mass income displacement, or you are one of the politicians that voted year after year to dismantle social safety nets you might want to consider emigrating somewhere safe by that time. For instance – if you were involved in the fashion business, and you were tangentially involved in (and I am spitballing here) certain transactions of brokering ambitious 15-year old models to interested, affluent gentlemen, I would start to become very careful about now, because there is a M A S S A N G E R B R E W I N G. Right now, and it’s no longer subtle.
For officials today, that means one thing: (in)actions are not disappearing into the fog of history.
Even if formal consequences never materialize, reputational consequences may. The digital record is durable. Younger generations, raised in environments where institutional skepticism is already high, will not approach archival material with inherited deference. This creates a long horizon of accountability, and in an unstable future this accountability may have narrative aspects you won’t like up close and personal.
Do I need to spell it out?
Radicalization and the Vacuum of Trust
When official channels are perceived as blocked, fringe channels expand. That is a pattern observed across political systems, across centuries.
If courts are seen as compromised, people turn to media.
If media is seen as compromised, people turn to influencers.
If influencers are seen as compromised, people turn to decentralized communities.
If all of those fail to provide satisfactory answers, some individuals turn inward—toward grievance-driven ideologies. That tends to end in Nihilism.
It is crucial to be explicit here: violence is neither justified nor acceptable as a response to perceived injustice. Democracies depend on non-violent dispute resolution. But ignoring the social psychology of grievance does not make it disappear.
If large numbers of people believe they have been denied justice in the face of the most gruesome of crimes —and then encounter increasingly extreme interpretations that validate that belief—the probability of gruesome behavior rises. Not because it is moral. Not because it is lawful. But because human systems behave predictably under perceived betrayal. The responsible response to this is not repression of speech, nor indulgence of rumor. It is transparency, clarity, and demonstrable fairness.
The Rule of Law as a Cultural Asset
The rule of law is not merely a procedural mechanism. It is a cultural contract.
It rests on three assumptions:
-
Laws apply equally.
-
Violations are investigated impartially.
-
Outcomes are explained transparently.
When any of those assumptions are widely doubted, legitimacy degrades.
The Epstein case, for many observers, has become a stress test of those assumptions. Not necessarily because of definitive evidence of systemic corruption, but because of opacity, contradictory narratives, and incomplete disclosures. Ambiguity fuels suspicion. And suspicion, when unmanaged, metastasizes.
Why Caution Matters in Public Discourse
It is important to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Suggesting or imagining harm against specific individuals is irresponsible and counterproductive. It delegitimizes otherwise valid concerns about accountability.
The goal should not be intimidation. The goal should be clarity.
There is a profound difference between saying:
“Violence may occur,”
and saying,
“If institutions do not restore credibility, social instability becomes more likely.”
The first is a threat. The second is a sociological observation.
Responsible discourse requires maintaining that distinction.
What Is Actually at Stake
At stake is not vengeance. Personally I regard myself safe from this vengeance. I can decide I could care less. What is another dead Billionaire to me?
At stake is whether democratic societies can maintain credibility in an era of permanent digital memory and decentralized information flows. If the public comes to believe that elite networks protect themselves regardless of evidence, then at some point the society I have to operate in starts to implode.
This is not abstract.
Nations with declining institutional trust experience measurable instability: lower compliance with law, higher polarization, greater susceptibility to misinformation, and increased vulnerability to foreign influence operations. Trust is strategic infrastructure. Once damaged, rebuilding it is expensive.
The International Optics
The United States is not simply another country. It positioned itself for the better part of a century as a normative model for democratic governance. When its institutions were perceived—fairly or unfairly—as shielding powerful actors, the reputational impact extends globally. Authoritarian governments use such controversies rhetorically. Allied populations become more skeptical. The credibility of human rights advocacy weakens. Whether specific accusations are accurate is almost secondary to the perception that accountability is selective. Optics influence power. And power, in the modern world, is partly narrative.
The Long Horizon
Political actors often think in electoral cycles. Public memory now operates on generational timescales.
AI-enhanced archives mean that questions unanswered today will still be searchable tomorrow. Journalists yet unborn will revisit them. Scholars will analyze them. Activists will contextualize them.
Delayed accountability is not the same as absent accountability.
Even if no immediate consequences materialize, reputational trajectories can shift slowly and permanently. Historical judgment is often harsher than contemporary judgment because it benefits from distance and aggregated evidence.
That is not a threat. It is a pattern visible across centuries.