By Matt Underwood The discourse around Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes has ignited a provocative comparison, suggesting that the United States, rather than adhering to a traditional monarchy, has cultivated its own distinct form of royalty: the billionaire class. This perspective argues that the unchecked power, influence, and perceived lack of accountability possessed by some of America’s wealthiest individuals mirror, and in some ways surpass, the privileges historically associated with European aristocracy.
This notion of an American “billionaire class” as a form of royalty stems from observations about how these individuals operate within society. Unlike European royals, who often hold purely ceremonial roles and are subject to societal scrutiny and even legal consequences in their home countries, the US billionaire class is seen as wielding significant, often indirect, political and economic power. The implication is that this power shields them from the kind of accountability that European royalty, surprisingly, appears to be facing in some instances, especially when linked to scandalous activities.
The comparison to European royalty is particularly stark when considering the concept of accountability. There’s a sense of astonishment that actual royals are being held to account in nations where the US seems unable to effectively hold its own billionaires responsible for their alleged transgressions. This perceived disparity fuels the argument that the American system, by allowing unchecked wealth to translate into unchecked power, creates a parallel structure of privilege that is arguably more insidious because it is cloaked in the language of meritocracy and capitalism.
A powerful suggestion emerging from this discussion is the need to reframe how we discuss and understand this elite group. The term “The Epstein Class” is proposed as a way to keep the gravity of these issues in the public consciousness, preventing them from being relegated to fleeting news cycles. It’s a stark reminder of the exploitative potential that can arise when individuals, through immense wealth, gain the ability to manipulate systems and avoid consequences. This designation serves as a blunt instrument to challenge the narrative of benevolent capitalism and instead highlight the “predator class” or “exploitation class” that some believe these figures represent.
The argument is that European royalty, while historically privileged, often carries a historical expectation of public duty or “noblesse oblige.” In contrast, the American billionaire class is often characterized as primarily hoarding wealth, engaging in aggressive tax avoidance, and utilizing their financial power to influence politicians and policy. This, it is argued, creates a two-tiered justice system that functions precisely as intended, prioritizing the interests of the wealthy over the broader public good.
The key difference, according to this viewpoint, is not merely in the existence of wealth but in its application and the consequences of its abuse. While European royalty might be scrutinized, the US billionaire class, when implicated in serious scandals, is seen as receiving corporate tax breaks or being allowed to acquire major platforms, effectively sanitizing their image or circumventing any meaningful repercussions. This is contrasted with ordinary citizens who face penalties for minor infractions, highlighting a deeply unequal system.
The very structure of American society is presented as perpetuating this “layer cake of classes.” While outwardly presenting as a meritocracy, the reality is seen as a system where the top 1% inhabit a vastly different world. Their ability to bypass everyday struggles – from crowded travel and infrastructure issues to access to quality healthcare and education – is directly attributable to their financial power. This, in turn, means that solutions for their problems are readily available, while those faced by the majority remain intractable due to a lack of resources and political will.
The idea of addressing the “money” rather than superficial titles is presented as a more effective path to societal improvement. If the undue influence of immense wealth could be curtailed, proponents argue, the pinnacle of American society might eventually begin to align with the needs of its citizens, rather than solely its own interests. The frustration is palpable when individuals draw parallels between minor legal penalties faced by ordinary citizens and the seemingly negligible consequences for billionaires who allegedly break laws, even election laws.
This notion of an “Epstein class” extends to the idea that they are the unseen forces behind much of the corruption in society. It’s a corruption born from absolute power, which, as the adage goes, corrupts absolutely. The call to action is clear: tax these individuals and entities appropriately to create a more equitable and livable America for all its citizens. The contrast between the accountability faced by some European royals and the untouchability of their American counterparts is described as “sickening.”
Instead of crowns, this American royalty wears the guise of funded Super PACs and lobbying efforts, effectively ensuring that justice departments and regulatory bodies “permanently look the other way.” This is a system designed to benefit those with the most money, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of power and privilege. The underlying sentiment is that only those who are either ignorant of this dynamic or actively benefiting from it continue to grant these figures undue attention and influence.
Some also draw parallels to established American political dynasties, suggesting that families like the Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons have long sought to maintain power within their lineage, akin to European royalty. While American families may not historically have the same generational staying power in politics as some European noble houses, the underlying principle of inherited influence and the jockeying for advantageous positions for progeny are seen as remarkably similar. The argument is that success for individuals like George W. Bush was not solely based on merit but heavily influenced by his name and family connections, a hallmark of aristocratic systems.