Spinach quiche

This recipe was the basis for this dish, although I didn't follow the instructions religiously.

I'm very fortunate to live near a supermarket that stocks dough for quiches and pies. It's a roll that you roll out into a nice circle shape, exactly the right thickness, sitting on top of a sheet of baking paper. You can just transfer the whole thing, paper and dough, into a round quiche mold, tear off the parts that spill over the side, punch some holes in the bottom with a fork, and you're good to go. Best of all, you don't need to blind bake it before putting in the filling.

All of this makes the following recipe a lot easier to make. If you're not lucky enough to have this instant quiche dough like me, start with the dough early, rolling it out and then blind baking it with those ceramic baking beans weighing it down. After that, just follow the instructions below for the filling.

Boil some 3 cm of water in a pot, and when it boils, bring it to a simmer. Place a steaming basket or a steel colander over the top of the pot and put in 200g fresh spinach. Cover it and let it steam for some 5-10 minutes, until it's good and wilted. You may need to stir it a bit halfway through.

In a big bowl, crack six eggs and add 200 ml milk. Whisk until mixed well. Slice a few scallions and throw them in there. Crumble 100 g feta, add that too. Squeeze as much water as you can out of the wilted spinach. I put it between two cutting boards and then press down, and if it's not too hot anymore, I also just squeeze it between my hands. Pull bits and pieces off the resulting spinach ball and add all the spinach like this. Mix everything together, then pour the mix into the dough container and bake the whole thing for 40 minutes at 200 °C. 

While I waited, I made a side salad by grating some carrots and mixing them with a big dollop of mayo.

Jeffrey Epstein killed himself

 

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein

This image, with no further comment, was posted on Twitter the other day. Maybe seeing it will trigger memories of Epstein's death and of the popular meme, "Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself." Maybe it also makes you wonder, "Yeah, whatever came of that whole Epstein thing? Wasn't Bill Clinton involved? Or Bill Gates? Or Stephen Hawking? Somebody's covering something up."

In this post, I hope to convince you that everything implied by this social media post is bullshit.

First, the post reaffirms a long-standing conspiracist trope: the notion that in the halls of political and corporate power, dark, unspeakable things are happening that cannot abide the light of day. And the reason we don't know about these things is because powerful people are hiding them from us.

What's conspiracist about this is that it's conveniently hermetic and unfalsifiable. If there's no evidence of this allegation (beyond anonymous people on the internet repeating it to each other), that's simply because the perpetrators are just so darn good at hiding the evidence. The idea of highly effective secrecy among the presumed conspirators is crucial for any self-respecting conspiracy theory. Nobody keeps secrets better than the real plotters of 9/11, the people who are hiding the existence of extraterrestrials from us, or the people who faked the moon landing. So it is with the people surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.

What's equally important is that the truth being hidden is unspeakable. A man with a net worth of $600 million setting up his own private pedophile ring is monstrous, but Epstein is too unknown, and his sexual abuse too banal and depressing, to really morbidly fascinate the public. That's why the theory involves people who are more famous, and why their presumed crimes make Epstein look like a foot soldier, rather than the monster he actually was.

What's more, the theory must have staying power, and this one does. Because it can never be disproven, it will fester forever. Asking a vague question like "When will we get names?" reinforces the idea that "we" are expecting this question to be answered, the ugly truth to be exposed, someday. By implication, it also means that "they" are actively keeping the truth hidden from us. Note that no concrete action —file a lawsuit, talk to your Congressperson, hire a private investigator— is ever taken or advocated to find out the answer. Rather, the question is just asked endlessly, over and over again.

But if you step away from the mindset for a minute and consider the question honestly, it falls apart under even the smallest amount of scrutiny. The implication is that because Epstein is dead and Maxwell is not singing, we'll never find out who did all these nonspecific but horrible crimes. But the reality is that there are other people involved in this sordid story who could shed light on other co-conspirators. These are the people who are conspicuously absent from all these conspiratorial viral posts. It's Epstein's victims. Do you know their names? Do you know how many there are? Shouldn't these women be the most important people in the story? And for the purposes of this discussion, wouldn't they be able to point the finger at their abusers?

They're certainly not afraid to point the blame at rich, powerful people. They've testified against Epstein. They've testified against Maxwell. Virginia Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of sexual assault. It's a logical conclusion that whoever they didn't mention by now, wasn't involved in some massive secret sex abuse scandal, of which there is no concrete proof.

A conspiracist who reads the previous paragraph will never admit that it's a good point. Instead, they will look for, or dream up, any evidence, no matter how contorted, that can make the theory hermetic and unfalsifiable again. The conspiracist doesn't care about the victims, and never has. They will happily, for example, somehow transform the victims into co-conspirators, so long as it keeps the theory safe and unassailable. What matters is safeguarding the theory, not presenting the facts.

We will never get names, because there are no names to get. It's a narrative, a story, a grim fairy tale about people we love to hate anyway. People like Clinton or Gates will never be able to completely debunk the allegation that they are secretly abusing children. Engaging with the theory in any way, especially denying it, will only heighten the suspicion.

And yes, Jeffrey Epstein did kill himself. Of course he did. He was a man of incredible wealth and power, who abused minors for decades with impunity, only to find himself in a decrepit jail cell, sure to face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. His fate would have been much worse than Maxwell's, who's doing 20 years. He'd made a failed suicide attempt days before the successful one. And if you think his every move should have been closely observed by prison guards, you don't know the American prison system very well. The only thing keeping you from believing this evident truth is the tantalizing notion that there is more to this than the drab, depressing and disgusting reality that meets the eye.