Yep. In fact, calling them paedos isn’t even necessarily correct (a paedophile, by colloquial definition, is attracted to minors, but doesn’t necessarily commit rape - many who recognise this attraction in themselves seek psychiatric help and never offend in their lives) - they’re just child rapists who rape children not because they’re attracted to them but because it is simply the most deplorable crime one can commit, their attraction is to the act itself and suffering no repercussions.

I mean just by numbers it doesn’t work out. It’s estimated that in western countries, the general affliction itself is present in 1 to 3% of the population. Within the “upper echelons”, the uber-wealthy, based on the Epstein files and the Diddy case, the amount of child sex abusers (and those supporting it by keeping it quiet, financing or otherwise supporting the child traffickers, etc.), seem to be anywhere between 10 to 40% - ten+ times higher than in other segments of society…

Now there’s two explanations to this:

• either paedos that successfully hide their behaviour somehow manage to excel in positions that allow one to become super wealthy
• or, within the billionaire circles, being attracted to children isn’t the driving factor for raping them

And I’m actually not sure which option is the worse…