The Danger of Viewing the Epstein Files through the Lens of Puritanism

As scores of people pore over the newly released, and heavily redacted, Epstein files, it is worth examining one very American phenomenon. While the files contain truly monstrous allegations and photos, they also contain things which are not criminal or unethical, but which are all too often lumped in with all of the awful things. And this is the legacy of American puritanism.

None of this is to excuse the crimes of the ruling class, which are copious. And it is not to downplay any of the allegations from the victims. What I have seen so far is absolutely horrifying. But I have also seen an all too typical response among many Americans to its content which has more to do with personal moral standards than any legal wrongdoing. And this bias can create conditions which have been traditionally used as a bludgeon against women and minorities, such as racialized communities, transgender, queer and sex workers.

So, let’s separate the criminal from the salacious. The criminal should be obvious. Sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking, rape are all things that should be unequivocally condemned. But there are other things which are not. Kink, fetishes, masturbation, orgies, adult pornography. These things are not illegal in the US. At least, not yet. They are merely different features of human sexuality and preference. And are perfectly healthy, so long as they are between consenting adults. The reason this is so important is because historically, the latter has been used to oppress, persecute and discriminate against marginalized communities.

Puritanism in America has a persistent, pernicious and cruel legacy. And it stemmed from settler-colonial white men who used religion as a means of protecting their power and stealing land and property. While damning women and queer people for their supposed “sins,” these men were able to commit heinous atrocities which were often either overlooked by judicial bodies or made completely legal for them.

And it extended out toward racialized others. Indigenous societies, which had a long history of gender diversity, were cast as savages. Black men were stereotyped as being sexual predators, a legacy which continues to this day. Black women were often portrayed as sexually promiscuous, as a way of pitting them against supposedly “pure” white women.

And women, as a whole, have been among the most abused by puritanical mores. The infamous Witch Trials in New England did not merely pertain to some accusation of satanic possession. They had more to do with accusing women of “unnatural” sexual relations or for exerting control over their own bodies. And this was most often done to provide cover for stealing the land of unwed or widowed women. We can see contemporary shades of this dark chapter whenever there is a satanic or sex panic in society.

The crimes of the wealthy and powerful men, and some women, in the Epstein Files are indeed monstrous. But it is ironic that they are part of a political system that routinely demonizes transgender people, drag queens, non-binary and sex workers for their identity or choices, while they participate in the most atrocious and abusive behavior toward the most defenseless among us.

It is important to see this distinction as more and more files are revealed. And to understand the power dynamic at play. This is about nonconsensual dominance by people who have no concern for the welfare of their victims. It is about humiliation and exploitation of the most vulnerable human beings in society by the ruling class. But if they are not seen through this lens, there is a very real danger that the ghosts of puritanism will sully their meaning. And if that happens, they can be easily weaponized against people who had nothing to do with these crimes whatsoever.

Kenn Maurice Orfanos, February 2026

1 thought on “The Danger of Viewing the Epstein Files through the Lens of Puritanism

  1. Becky's avatarBecky

    An article about this scandal in the UK’s Weekly Worker site (run by the Communist Party of Great Britain) concludes:

    “Yet none of this is really earth-shattering stuff. That has been a big part of the story, really. Andrew and Mandelson are two of very few Epstein associates to have suffered any serious consequences: Andrew because he is, to be frank, a very stupid man, who dug his own grave with enthusiasm and application over the years; and Mandelson, presumably, because he is a dab hand at making enemies. The Epstein saga is like an overstretched ‘mystery box’ TV series – the revelations pile up, but, on the whole, seem inconsequential. Except for one or two individuals, there is no reckoning to be had. If Mandelson does end up going to jail over this, it seems that he may be the only one apart from Epstein himself and Ghislaine Maxwell.

    … the ineffectual character of the Epstein revelations. Yes, interest in the case may have been successfully exploited by Donald Trump; but, of course, he is implicated too, and now he tries to squash it. The Democrats exploit it now to embarrass Trump – and will forget it if they regain power, because it implicates the Clintons and many influential donors. With this conspiracy laid bare, we finally have a test case for what happens if the truth of such a plot is finally unveiled, all the names named. And the answer is … nothing of much consequence. It is fun to see Mandelson squirm, but he is no great man of history, and will be replaced by other fixers and operatives in bourgeois politics. Andrew’s downfall – despite republican wishcasting – will not bring the house of Windsor down with it.

    Conspiracy obsession is a messianism without a messiah. The day will come when all is unveiled, but what then? Who acts on the consequence of the unveiling? It may seem preposterous that anyone could have thought that Donald Trump would clean this up, but he was the available man on horseback, and some such agent is required to make good on the promise of liberation. For Marxists, the agent of change is the working class; but it can achieve its destiny only if it knows that the conspirators, as much as their victims, are subject to laws beyond their control – in short, only if it abjures conspiracy theory as an explanatory mechanism per se. Rather, conspiracies are objects to be explained.

    We must face the likely reality that, but for future scholarship and perhaps a few more random defenestrations of embarrassing figures, the Epstein saga is essentially played out. What is still on the table is the future – a future that, absent the destruction of the power of the bourgeoisie, is certain to involve more naked corruption and unpunished depravity of the same sort.”

    (‘Rotten to the very core’, Weekly Worker 5 Feb 2026)

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment