Guilt by Association

Nicholas Blakiston confronts an individual who falsely assigns blame for the crimes of the Epstein death cult.

A common and grave error is to assign guilt by association rather than by individual behavior, for no group is homogeneous. Ample examples of this error can be seen among racists, sexists, and nationalists, yet few individuals seem capable of avoiding it in all instances.

In the following discussion, an individual makes this error when assigning guilt regarding some of the most heinous crimes of our era. Nicholas engages to point out the absurdity of the claim being made, as well as the need for an honest investigation, the release of evidence, and careful consideration of that evidence—along with relevant testimony—so that guilt can be accurately assigned. Instead, it is broadly assigned to a collective that includes many innocent parties, while potentially deflecting attention away from some who are guilty.

He is met with neither remorse nor understanding, and the public continues to lack the evidence, testimony, and justice they demand regarding these crimes.

The “1%” refers to the top 1 percent by wealth or income in the United States. In 2025, that cutoff was approximately $700,000 in household income or roughly $11 million in net worth. The National Basketball Association’s minimum salary exceeds that threshold; therefore, if this claim is read literally—as it should be, given that the files suggest a DEATH CULT INFLUENCING SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD—then it would mean that 100% of NBA players are part of the Epstein cult.

This is obviously absurd—and even more so when we consider the many individuals who, by fortune, favor, fate, force, fraud, or simply through high-paying employment or entrepreneurship, have exceeded such income or net worth thresholds.

If the person making this claim were not, in the words of Ayn Rand, “shrill,” they might slow down and acknowledge this. They might begin to understand why others disagree with the proposed solutions of taxation and democracy, and perhaps a path toward healing could emerge—not only from whatever atrocities the Epstein network likely CONTINUES TO PERPETRATE, but also from the systems of taxation and democracy that empower and fund the political leaders they claim to oppose.

If she were only referring to the subset of the 1% involved in the Epstein network, then why not say so? Why invoke “the 1%” at all if guilt by association is not the objective? This framing appears to be a deliberate attempt to redirect anger for political purposes. Such a tactic reflects not only a lack of concern for actual justice regarding these crimes, but also a failure to persuade others toward class-based hostility through rational argument.

She now attempts to defend the “100%” claim by calling it “an exaggeration to make a point.” But this is not an exaggeration—it is an entirely different claim.

An exaggeration stretches a claim while preserving its underlying meaning. For example, saying “many” or even “most” might be exaggerated rhetorically. But “100%” is not a stretch of “many”—it is a claim of universality. It asserts that every single member of the group is implicated. That is categorically different from claiming that some or even many wealthy individuals were involved.

This distinction matters because the universal claim necessarily assigns guilt to countless individuals who have no connection to these crimes. It is not rhetorical emphasis—it is a complete abandonment of precision in favor of collective blame.

She then attempts to revise the claim further, asserting that 100% of the “men” in the Epstein files are 1%ers. But no framing renders the original claim defensible. In reality, the full, unredacted Epstein files have not been released, so we do not even have a complete list of those included. That fact alone introduces sufficient uncertainty to undermine any “100%” assertion. Additionally, not everyone mentioned in the files is necessarily a member of the 1%.

Even if it were true that all individuals in the Epstein files were 1%ers—and while many primary offenders may indeed fall into that category—it would still not justify the original meme, which explicitly claimed that 100% of 1%ers are in the Epstein files. That claim clearly attempts to redirect anger toward a broad group that includes many people with no connection to these crimes.

She then asserts that Nicholas “wants to defend the 1%ers,” attempting to personalize the disagreement and provoke hostility. However, he is not offering a blanket defense of the 1%; rather, he is calling for guilt to be assigned based on individual actions, not through indiscriminate generalizations that implicate innocent people.

Finally, she claims that no one is listening to Nicholas—and on that point, he finds a measure of agreement.

Nicholas received no additional response to these replies. As of this writing, the unredacted Epstein files have still not been released.