Epstein Eugenics: The Plan to Seed the Human Race
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
April 28, 2024
Remember the summer of 2019?
Remember when—after months of growing awareness of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, rising concern over the blatantly illegal cover-up of those crimes, and renewed scrutiny of his "philanthropic" efforts—Epstein was finally arrested in New York?
Remember when Epstein then "committed suicide" in the Metropolitan Correction Center in Manhattan, where he was being held on sex trafficking charges?
Remember when "Epstein didn't kill himself" became a viral online meme?
Of course you do, because those events weren't just covered by alternative media outlets like The Corbett Report and Media Monarchy, they were also covered (or is that covered up?) by the lamestream dinosaur media. In fact, in those heady days before the scamdemic kicked into full gear, it seemed talk about Epstein was well-nigh inescapable.
So, do you remember how that same lamestream media continued its limited hangout coverage of the Epstein op for years? Remember the flood of podcasts and video reports and "special investigative series" on the Epstein rabbit hole, always promising sensational new revelations about the case but only delivering tawdry, sensationalistic claptrap?
Again, I'm sure you do.
And do you remember how Whitney Webb dove straight down that rabbit hole with One Nation Under Blackmail and—in two incredibly dense, extensively footnoted volumes—blew the lid off of the almost-completely neglected financial and intelligence aspects of the Epstein story?
As a Corbett Reporteer, you probably do remember that (if only because you saw my interview with Webb about her book).
And did you pursue the cookie crumb trail back to researchers like Nick Bryant, who has been covering the Epstein story for decades and who is now heading a new organization, Epstein Justice, which is seeking to achieve justice for Epstein's victims by ending the kakistocracy that enabled his crimes?
Again, if you're a devoted Corbetteer, the answer is probably "yes."
But here's another question: do you remember the headline "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA"?
If you're like most people (and you're being honest), the answer is likely "no." At best, you may have caught this story when it was first (briefly) reported in the MSM and then quickly lost track of it in the flurry of the 60/24 news cycle.
If so, why is that? Don't you think the fact that Epstein was engaged in some bizarre eugenical quest to seed the human race with his DNA might be worth more than a fleeting mention in a few articles from half a decade ago? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this aspect of the Epstein saga?
I know I do.
Let's fill in that gap in our understanding with an exploration of Epstein's eugenic master plan.
EPSTEIN ASSEMBLES HIS NETWORK
The Epstein story further confirmed the horrifying truth that elite pedophile rings are operating at the highest levels of society.
Of course, this is not news to conspiracy realists who have been documenting this phenomenon for decades. But with Epstein's arrest in 2019, the existence of high-level political pedophile rings finally became so undeniable that not even the normiest of the normies could dismiss the subject out of hand anymore. Not coincidentally, that's precisely the moment when the lamestream repeaters in the establishment media realized that their cushy propagandist jobs now depended on them actually reporting on the very same crimes they had spent years covering up. Accordingly, they sprang into action, and, for a brief window of time, we saw a brief burst of reporting about Epstein.
Suddenly, there was good ol' Ronan "Woody Blue Eyes" Farrow over at The New Yorker explaining "How an Élite University Research Center Concealed Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein."
And there was venerable CBS News, revealing that "Jeffrey Epstein Frequented Harvard, Had Own Office, Report Finds."
And there were the valiant truthtellers over at Buzzfeed, bravely reporting on "How Jeffrey Epstein Bought His Way Into An Exclusive Intellectual Boys Club."
What these articles (and many similar decade-late-to-the-party reports) hinted at was one of the stranger aspects of the Epstein affair. As it turns out, Epstein had spent some considerable part of his fortune collecting, not expensive cars or pricey real estate or rare artwork, but scientists. (Well, OK, he did decorate his multimillion-dollar estates with some pretty disturbing artwork, but that's not our focus today.)
Naturally, the academic and scientific institutions that benefited from Jeffrey Epstein's largess quickly stepped forward to claim they were shocked (SHOCKED!) to discover that the convicted sex trafficker they were accepting money from was in fact a pedophile rapist blackmailer. They promised to begin immediately investigating themselves so they could determine what had happened . . . and then find themselves blameless of wrongdoing.
Harvard president Lawrence Bacow, for example, penned a letter to "Members of the Harvard Community" denouncing Epstein's "reported criminal actions" and promising to "conven[e] a group here
at Harvard to review how we prevent these situations in the future." That group reached the convenient conclusion that most of Epstein's donations to Harvard had occurred before his 2006 arrest and that the university had enacted a ban on gifts from the high-level pedophile after 2008. However, subsequent reporting showed that this was a complete and total lie. Not only had Epstein been paying the office rent for an off-campus Harvard lab, and not only had he set himself up with an office there, but, it turns out, his relationship with long-time Harvard President Larry Summers was much more extensive than previously known and in fact extended all the way back to the 1990s, when Summers was serving as Clinton's Treasury secretary.
MIT President L. Rafael Reif, too, issued a letter admitting to the university's relationship with Epstein and promising an investigation into what went wrong. And, just like Harvard's response, the comeback from its Cambridge neighbour was shown to be a self-serving whitewash. MIT grossly downplayed the amount of money that its Media Lab accepted from Epstein as well as the lengths the lab went to to cover up the source of those funds. An email uncovered in that investigation even showed how the lab had accepted a mysterious $2 million gift from Bill Gates "directed by Jeffrey Epstein"—and then had omitted Epstein's name from the books "for gift recording purposes."
But perhaps the best way to get a handle on the extent of Epstein's involvement in the scientific community is to examine the list of big-name academics who, in the wake of Epstein's "suicide," were forced to issue a statement apologizing for (and minimizing) their association with him.
In addition to a slew of academics who are noted in their field but are not household names—like Martin Nowak, Seth Lloyd, Robert Trivers and George Church, to name a few—Epstein also funded, supported and cultivated relationships with a variety of scientists widely known to the public.
There was Steven Pinker, for example, who, it turns out, not only flew to a 2002 TED talk on Epstein's "Lolita Express" private jet, but provided an "expert opinion" for Epstein's original legal defense back in 2007. When these uncomfortable facts emerged, Pinker promptly denied knowing that his expert opinion was going to be used for Epstein's defense, claimed that he "could never stand the guy," and began blocking anyone mentioning his Epstein ties on social media.
There was Lawrence Krauss, a renowned theoretical physicist who founded The Origins Project at Arizona State University in 2008 to—according to the project's website—"explore humankind's most fundamental questions about our origins." In addition to tackling questions about the origins of the universe, Krauss also spent much of his time in the 2000s and even 2010s organizing scientific conferences for Epstein, introducing him to other important academics and even vocally defending Epstein. When asked in 2011 about his connection to the pedophile rapist, Krauss responded that, since he had never seen Epstein with a woman under 19 years old, "my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people." He even went so far as to declare, "I don't feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it." Krauss lost his position at ASU in 2018 over sexual harassment allegations.
There was even famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, who spent time chilling on Epstein's private island during a 2006 conference organized for Epstein by Krauss—a fact that was confirmed by Snopes, so you know it's true!
So, here's the real question: why the hell was the most prolific rapist, pedophile and blackmailer of modern times so keen on wining, dining, cavorting with and funding top-level scientists and academics?
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND THE ENGINEERING OF HUMANITY
Alright, so Epstein spent a good portion of his fortune sponsoring scientists' research and funding their labs and hosting their conferences and generally cultivating relationships with academics. So what? What does all of this actually mean?
Well, we could take Epstein's network at face value and conclude that, in addition to raping children and blackmailing politicians for the benefit of his intelligence handlers, Epstein also happened to have a genuine interest in science. After all, wasn't he a math teacher at the Dalton School back in the '70s? And didn't he display such unusual mathematical aptitude that, soon after being discovered and snapped up by investment giant Bear Sterns, he managed to work his way up the ranks from lowly junior assistant to partner? Maybe he was truly interested in research and academia.
. . . But that explanation only works if we ignore all those parts of Epstein's back story that suggest he was not a plucky math savant whose love of education and hard work led to success, but was, rather, some form of intelligence cutout who was being shepherded into positions of power and influence from the beginning. After all, how did Epstein land that teaching gig at the prestigious Dalton School at the age of 21 without so much as a college degree? What did Donald Barr have to do with that hiring decision? Why, exactly, did Alan Greenberg decide to hire him on at Bear Sterns? And how did Epstein manage to walk away from his position at that investment bank after just five years to start a money management business exclusively catering to billionaires?
Whatever the answers to these questions, it seems they have little to do with a sincere interest in math and science.
Abandoning the "natural interest" explanation, let's look at another possible answer to this mystery—an answer proffered by Wired in this bizarre passage from a 2019 article on "Jeffrey Epstein and the Power of Networks":
Epstein, it’s easy to surmise, hoped to launder his reputation by association with all this [scientific research]—to purchase secular indulgences from these intellectual high priests. Or maybe he just wanted to feel smart. According to one account, Epstein’s actual interest in science was at best dilettantish; he’d ask big questions but his attention would wander, and he’d change the subject by saying, “What does that got to do with pussy?”
This "reputation laundering" hypothesis is pat, it's convenient, and it seems to make sense. Furthermore, as STAT News points out, it's in line with what Epstein's own PR claimed.
He seemed to believe his interactions with scientists, especially those at Harvard, would buff his reputation in the financial world, saying on his website that he had “the privilege of sponsoring many prominent scientists.”
. . . But we're not going to take Epstein's own PR at face value, are we?
If we want to get to the bottom of Epstein's penchant for funding scientists, then, we'll have to dig deeper. We'll have to look into what research he was funding and what labs benefited from his philanthropy.
In some cases, Epstein's interest in particular institutions seems perfectly in line with what we already know about him. His generous support of the MIT Media Lab, for instance, lends retrospective credence to a once-outlandish-sounding 2012 report claiming that Aaron Swartz did not commit suicide but was instead murdered because he was about to expose a pedophile ring operating out of that lab.
But other cases of Epstein's scientific philanthropy open the window onto a completely different story.
Take, for example, the off-campus Harvard lab that Epstein helped establish and pay rent for. What was that lab called, again? Oh, that's right: The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED). And what did the disturbingly accurately named PED do, exactly? According to the press release that the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation issued to brag about this philanthropic endeavour in 2013:
The Program is the first to study the evolution of micro biology with the use of mathematics. It is also the first to develop mathematical models of how cancer cells evolve as well as various bacteria and viruses such as HIV. The creation of such models has led to key discoveries in combatting diseases of all kinds.
That press release also contained this telling quote from the head PED himself:
"Mathematics in evolutionary biology is an exciting new field," Jeffrey Epstein remarked, whose foundation supports cutting edge science across the United States. "It reveals patterns that are otherwise hard to detect."
Does the application of mathematics to evolutionary biology start to give you an indication of the type of science that Epstein was particularly interested in? If not, then let's continue this exploration by examining another beneficiary of Epstein's financial generosity, George Church.
George Church is—as the "biographical sketch" on his website explains—a Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School whose "1984 Harvard PhD included the first methods for direct genome sequencing, molecular multiplexing & barcoding" and whose work "led to the first genome sequence." As the sketch goes on to detail at length, Church's work on DNA sequencing, like his work on "chip-DNA synthesis" and gene editing, has led to numerous business ventures and research opportunities.
In his 2023 article, "Starting Human Clinical Trials for Combo Antiaging Genome Engineering," journalist Brian Wang reveals one of Church's latest efforts: developing and scaling human genome engineering so that humans can overcome their "biological pathways for aging" and extend their lives by hundreds of years.
Oh, goodie.
To understand why the prospect of tinkering with our genome in the quest to live hundreds of years is a frightening concept, we can turn to "Bayer's SynBio Spokesman George Church," written last November by Corbett Report member Alexis Baden-Mayer at The Scamerican Century Substack. In that article, Baden-Mayer fills in an important piece of the puzzle of Church's background—namely, that he kick-started his career with a "Monsanto Postdoc Fellowship" in 1985.
Then, she points to a 2020 "Leaps by Bayer" video in which Church discusses his work in "synthetic biology"—a field of research that, as Genome.gov helpfully informs us, involves "redesigning organisms for useful purposes by engineering them to have new abilities"—and a 2022 BIOS video in which he enthuses about how the scamdemic softened up the public to the notion of tinkering with the genome of humanity on a mass scale.
According to Church:
COVID was a horrible thing, but it had a lot of unintended positive effects and one of them was, to my mind, a refreshed new way of looking at gene therapy where instead of dealing with ultra-rare diseases where you have $2.8 million a dose, you can have very common things like aging and pandemics. The top five pandemic vaccines were all formulated in a gene therapy way of formulation. That is to say, three of them were adenoviral capsid delivery of double-stranded DNA and two of them were lipid nanoparticle with RNA and that at as little as $2-a-dose cost of manufacturing. That completely changes the discussion about gene therapy, looking for now-common diseases like aging reversal and related things. So I’m very high on gene therapy and aging reversal and the intersection of those two, because there’s such a gigantic market.
As Baden-Mayer correctly points out, Church and his co-conspirators "aren’t interested in curing rare diseases—or any disease for that matter." Indeed, "[w]hy treat a small number of sick people when they can market genetic engineering to everyone" on behalf of their big pharma (and financier) stringpullers?
There are many avenues and detours that one could take once one has jumped down the George Church rabbit hole, but here's one such rabbit hole warren that appeared at the precise same time as his connection to Epstein became national news: Church's eugenics-based dating app!
You see, in December 2019, CBS's long-running broadcast 60 Minutes sat down for an interview with Church. Journalist Pete Shanks gave a blistering account of the interview in "Scientist on the Loose: George Church Strays Into Eugenics—Again":
In 60 Minutes Overtime (on the web), Scott Pelley pressed Church gently about accepting funding from Jeffrey Epstein, the child-rapist and avowed eugenicist. His claims of “nerd tunnel vision” when it came to the funder aren’t much of an excuse, nor is his idea that it’s fine to use “tainted money” to fund work he believes benefits the greater good. (At least he did previously express concern for the victims, which is more than some.)
And, as Shanks also details, that same interview saw Pelley questioning Church about one of his stranger scientific projects, which Gizmodo called "a dating app only a eugenecist could love." The app, it was revealed, would match potential lovers "based on ideal DNA pairings." But, Church assures us, the idea is not creepy. It's altruistic! It would, after all, "screen out matches that would result in a child with an inherited disease."
GEORGE CHURCH: You wouldn't find out who you're not compatible with. You'll just find out who you are compatible with.
SCOTT PELLEY: You're suggesting that if everyone has their genome sequenced and the correct matches are made, that all of these diseases could be eliminated?
CHURCH: Right. It's 7,000 diseases. It's about 5% of the population. It's about a trillion dollars a year, worldwide.
You see? Church's sudden departure from DNA sequencing and the engineering of life into matchmaking territory isn't bizarre at all. In fact, it's uber-logical. It will eliminate disease and save people a trillion dollars a year! Yay, eugenics! What could possibly go wrong?
Still, Epstein's funding of Church's research into genetic engineering, DNA sequencing, synthetic biology and eugenics-based dating is hardly surprising once we learn what Epstein himself professed as his main scientific interest.
All of which brings us right back to . . .
EPSTEIN'S PLAN TO SEED THE HUMAN RACE
The 2019 New York Times article that I referenced at the beginning of today's exploration, "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA," is an oddity, to be sure. Not only is it one of those rare dinosaur media articles that dares reference eugenics, it is also one of those still-rarer dinosaur media articles that mentions transhumanism. And not only that, but it is one of those even rarer dinosaur media articles that correctly identifies transhumanism as a subset of eugenics. And, to top it all off, it is one of those rarest of dinosaur media article unicorns—one that actually explains to its readers why eugenics and transhumanism are bad things and why evil people like Jeffrey Epstein might be drawn to such sick ideologies in the first place.
The article starts by explaining Epstein's bizarre plan:
Jeffrey E. Epstein, the wealthy financier who is accused of sex trafficking, had an unusual dream: He hoped to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating women at his vast New Mexico ranch.
It quickly connects this dark dream to the even-darker dream of transhumanism:
Mr. Epstein’s vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.
Next it proceeds to document the stable of prominent scientists whose research Epstein helped fund and shows their connections to Epstein's eugenical master plan.
The piece quotes famed computer scientist, author and lecturer Jaron Lanier on Epstein's plan to use his opulent "Zorro Ranch" in Santa Fe as a "baby ranch."
Once, at a dinner at Epstein’s mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Lanier said he talked to a scientist who told him that Epstein’s goal was to have 20 women at a time impregnated at his 33,000-square-foot Zorro Ranch in a tiny town outside Santa Fe. Lanier said the scientist identified herself as working at NASA, but he did not remember her name.
According to Lanier, the NASA scientist said Epstein had based his idea for a baby ranch on accounts of the Repository for Germinal Choice, which was to be stocked with the sperm of Nobel laureates who wanted to strengthen the human gene pool. (Only one Nobel Prize winner has acknowledged contributing sperm to it. The repository discontinued operations in 1999.)
Lanier, the virtual-reality creator and author, said he had the impression that Epstein was using the dinner parties — where some guests were attractive women with impressive academic credentials — to screen candidates to bear Epstein’s children.
It cites one of the attendees of Epstein's 2006 scientific conference—the same conference that saw Stephen Hawking visiting "Lolita Island"—who relates how Epstein attempted to steer the discussion toward eugenics.
One participant at that conference, which was ostensibly on the subject of gravity, recalled that Epstein wanted to talk about perfecting the human genome. Epstein said he was fascinated with how certain traits were passed on, and how that could result in superior humans.
And it details Epstein's financial contributions to various transhumanist causes and proponents, including a 2011 grant Epstein's foundation made to the Worldwide Transhumanist Association (now known as "Humanity Plus") and a $100,000 grant Epstein made to Humanity Plus Chairman Ben Goetzel in 2001.
To be sure, the article also contains the types of prurient and crude details that populate most lamestream reporting on the Epstein saga:
One adherent of transhumanism said that he and Mr. Epstein discussed the financier’s interest in cryonics, an unproven science in which people’s bodies are frozen to be brought back to life in the future. Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen.
But, to its credit, it goes some way in exploring one of the main reasons that Epstein was interested in funding and hobnobbing with so many top-level evolutionary biologists, genetic engineers and transhumanists: not because of his interest in science and not because of his interest in reputation laundering, but because Epstein—like so many of his cohorts in the kakistocracy—was obsessed with eugenics.
This obsession should not be surprising to long-time followers of The Corbett Report because, as I've had cause to observe many times before . . .
IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO EUGENICS
Indeed, it's no surprise at all that the whole twisted saga of Epstein's scientific funding leads us right back to the doorstep of eugenics. It's where we always end up when we discuss the dark vision of the would-be rulers of the world.
It's why the rise to power of the Rockefeller family ended up with the Rockefeller Foundation helping establish eugenics in America and in Nazi Germany.
It's why the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is obsessed with technocratic solutions to population control, from remote control sterilization devices to digital ID systems to the normalization of mRNA gene therapy under the guise of "vaccination."
It's why Klaus Schwab and his WEF minions are so excited about the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the coming of the brain chip and the merging of our physical, digital and biological identity.
And it's why Epstein was so consumed with seeding the human race with his DNA and so determined to fund the scientists who are working on genetic engineering and synthetic biology and transhumanism.
It's not because any of them care for humanity and wish all humans to thrive.
It's because they hate humanity and want to control it. They want to eliminate the useless eaters and replace them with their own "master race" progeny.
That Malthusian drive and anti-human animus are perfectly demonstrated in this passage from the aforementioned NYT article:
At one session at Harvard, Epstein criticized efforts to reduce starvation and provide health care to the poor because doing so increased the risk of overpopulation, said Pinker, who was there. Pinker said he had rebutted the argument, citing research showing that high rates of infant mortality simply caused people to have more children. Epstein seemed annoyed, and a Harvard colleague later told Pinker that he had been “voted off the island” and was no longer welcome at Epstein’s gatherings.
Epstein's plan to flood the world with his DNA (thankfully) failed. But perhaps, in some twisted way, Epstein is still getting what he wanted. His legacy lives on in the form of the sick genetic engineering and synthetic biology research he helped fund. And it lives on in his fellow kakistocrats' maniacal desire to control the human population.
In the end, if we truly want Epstein's plan to seed the human race to fail, we must identify and root out the eugenic ideology that guides so many of his ilk.
Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today.
Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work.