Port plans to continue despite Epstein links
Is there anything or anyone not tainted by association with Jeffrey Epstein? The Port of Montreal’s plans for its new terminal at Contrecœur were thrown into doubt because the head of DP World, its partner in the venture, is one Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem who’s known to have exchanged sexy emails with Epstein.
The port is waving off this unpleasant association and proceeding with its plans. I don’t know whether this is good or bad (except for the copper redhorse, which is doomed, but we knew that).
Epstein has been such a profound lesson in the corruptibility of the powerful. How did his tentacles reach so many people in so many places?
Ephraim 09:25 on 2026-02-13 Permalink
Really? So, how are the Catholics doing on accountability of both priests and schools? How about Qatar… who built those stadiums? Yemen with child soldiers and child brides? And now a country that has supposedly killed 100K of their own in a period of a month, with all those famous people saying NOTHING about it. We have a pretty effed up world and it’s both sides of the political spectrum that has let us down.
Kevin 11:17 on 2026-02-13 Permalink
The worst is yet to come from the Epstein files because they appear to contain lots and lots of videos.
So my assumption is that there is lots of blackmail, caused by super-rich people associating with super-rich people who don’t view anyone ‘poor’ as a real person.
Frankie 13:40 on 2026-02-13 Permalink
He has resigned so, as far as the stakeholders are concerned, they can still do business with DP World. On the other hand, aside from the pervy chairman, DP World has big problems which should be of greater concern for the Port’s decision makers.
bob 15:00 on 2026-02-13 Permalink
This whole thing is moving past purity tests into a full on moral panic.
Kate – They are not corruptible, they are corrupt. There is a misconception about corruption that it takes some kind of temptation that an otherwise good person gives into. This is false. Corrupt people are corrupt because they are sociopathic, or psychopathic, or narcissistic, or some other thing. They will as soon break a rule for nothing as they would for money or power or sex or anything else. Epstein was not an unusually evil person in those circles – he was beloved because he was useful. He made himself psychologically useful, and also practically useful. Some publication described him as a concierge. The corruption is just endemic to those circles. It’s just that the vast public cares much more deeply about sex with fifteen year olds than it does about, say, social and political oppression, money laundering, media manipulation, rigging markets, redistributing wealth, etc. on down to human trafficking and mass murder.
Kate 11:22 on 2026-02-14 Permalink
Concierge is a good word. He made connections for people. Connections they badly wanted. He had an unerring eye for the desires of men and he made the most of it.
The thing about outrage over sex with minors rather than any of those other factors is that a lot of people benefit from social and political oppression, money laundering and so on. They don’t want those things to change, or become unavailable to them, because even people who are far from wealthy imagine they’ll need them. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires” as John Steinbeck wrote.
Whereas most people want to believe they would not have sex with minors if offered. I have my doubts whether this is really true, but most people want to believe it of themselves, so they can become properly outraged when it’s revealed.
qatzelok 14:29 on 2026-02-14 Permalink
Even Noam Chomsky? Wow.
This isn’t just about “sex with minors,” it’s about “a gang ruling the West through blackmail.” It means that our foreign policy and economy have been hijacked.
But what gang is responsible? Hmmm…
Ephraim 19:25 on 2026-02-14 Permalink
You don’t think foreign policy has been hijacked? Qatar donated an airplane to the President… the same Qatar that’s TV channel has been banned in many countries.
Ian 12:46 on 2026-02-15 Permalink
Oh come on Ephraim, Al Jazeera is not an official outlet for the Qatari government, and your implication that it has been banned making it suspect is pretty rich considering that the main country you are very circuitously referring to also banned MSF, UNWRA, CARRE International, OXFAM, … in fact, over 30 reputable NGOs providing humanitarian aid to Gaza.