There are only two options here.
- The pedos win and it becomes normalized.
- At least half of the sitting politicians go to prison for involvement and cover up.
Are mass executions already off the table?
Yea, I already think the people in charge are creepy and evil.
E-Eat??
We all know about Trump raping minors, so what do you think is so vile that he’s fighting tooth and claw to avoid releasing the files?
The US abducted a sitting president, broke NATO, is murdering their own citizens in the streets, and IDK what’s going to happen with Iran, but I’m sure glad not to be involved. Would Trump really do that to avoid having a pedo paper trail? I’m beginning to doubt it…
The idea that him being known as a pedophile is one of the positive outcomes for him (and the implications of that) is horrifying.
Maybe he really did eat children.
The idea that him being known as a pedophile is one of the positive outcomes for him (and the implications of that) is horrifying.
It will be status quo, if he’s only a documented child molester. The last 27% of the US population will support Trump no matter what, and his opposition in congress is so inept that they can’t coordinate impeaching him.
But maybe, if there’s documentation that Trump has eaten a kid alive, then congress will get their faces out of the bribe trough long enough to do something. Whatever congress then tries will be struck down by SCOTUS of course, but at least they’ll have tried.
You’ve created a reality in which I am looking forward to the news that Donald Trump ate children, simply so that we have literally undeniable evidence that he is a monster.
I need a cigarette.
It’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility, though there’s no direct evidence. One possible reason there’s no direct evidence is that, as deputy AG Todd Blanche recently said, they’re withholding any images that contain violence, physical harm, or death.
What scares me is all the people who knew this was going on. Jefferey’s friends were sophisticated and connected people. Even the ones who never got in a room with a little girl knew what he was about and did not give a fuck.
I don’t see a grand conspiracy. I see a social network of powerful people who are entitled to the bodies of little girls the same way wealth entitles one to to all objects. He got away with so much for so long because it was accepted and allowed. Every heard of ‘The Big Club’? We’ll, he’s in it.
When these people get to a certain financial level, they come to understand that they can literally buy anything they want. What illustrates that better than being able to purchase young women for your own pleasure?
And I wonder if they don’t really mind being part of The Club. We think they’re being blackmailed, but what if they are all doing this stuff, knowing it puts them in an exclusive club, with exclusive people, who all have to trust each other with the worst secrets in the world. What better way to signal that you’ve “arrived.”
Transgressing and keeping it a secret IS a tactic used to create cults. Sharing a great secret will make sure you lookout for each other.
There’s something that everybody seems to be ignoring…
( aside from the vile glossing-over of the “journalism”, with their “underage women” euphamism for girls, & their euphamisms for rape, etc, as thankfully, women have been pointing-out )
The way he worked was he used friendship to put people in the position of being friends with him, and then they found-out about more of what was going-on, but now the conflict-of-interest put them in a bind, & gang-loyalty/pack-loyalty/“family”-loyalty conflicted loyalty-to-principle.
AND THAT SAME CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST IS USED BY EVERY FAMILY, EVERY IDEOLOGY, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME, so no, it isn’t that they all knew & became his friend regardless: that is reversing the order, for at-least many of them.
WHY were the majority of people in East Germany actively snitching on whomever was around them, for sake of ingratiating themselves with the authorities?
Because that is human-nature.
Within-the-pack/“family”/“clan” … outranks principles.
Children have that driven into them by parents, by culture, by education, by stories, relentlessly.
The class-clan also played into it:
Say a person who was, with friendship with Epstein, now hobnobbing with people of the class above their normal level…
& then they learn more of what’s really going-on…
Now their conflict-of-interest is that if they go against their new “family”, they’ll … at-least get ostracized, & possibly murdered.
XOR, they can just compromise their principles, & get to have their clan/class/“family” validity remain…
& that is what they did.
Part of what bugs me with the simplistic “oh, but I would never have done that!” position … is simply that babies/lives born into different cultures FORM into those cultures.
That evidence is global.
it is idiotic to reject it.
People born into a “make yourself a ‘man’: put down as many others as you can, & prove yourself through your exclusive ‘success’” culture SIGNIFICANTLY BECOME that culture: they embody it.
Same as with people born into a more nurturing culture.
Same with people born into a short-term-only culture, vs a long-term-only culture…
The self-delusion of people who hold that “well I wouldn’t ever have been that way, were I the one born into that culture” is outright BEGGING universe to get one’s soul/continuum caught in exactly such a life, in the future, just to rub one’s soul’s face in it: karmic sucker-punching.
The phrase “there, but for the grace-of-G-D, go I” has real wisdom in it.
Freud apparently discovered that child-rape was normal, in the culture he inhabited, & tried speaking-up about it, but … well, backlash threatened to wipe his importance off the map, so he … got quiet about it, again.
Feudalism & slavery have pretty-much DEFINED our race’s last few millenia of history: we DID embody such corruption, such narcissism, such prejudice, consistently, for thousands of years.
What percentage of humankind rejected that kind of narcissism & perpetuating-established-corruption for sake of principles??
Seriously? it isn’t 1/2, it isn’t 1/20!!
This isn’t a they are corrupt problem, this is they had opportunity & exercised it, but we who haven’t been in their culture pretend that our nature is somehow inherently-different, therefore we pretend we wouldn’t ever have exercised that opportunity … kind of thing.
Yes, there are individuals who hold to principle in spite of it violating the culture they live in, like Charles Darwin being anti-slavery.
But … the whole “WE would NEVER do any such thing, were we born into that culture, ourselves!” … it’s dishonest.
& yes, it’s dishonest+vile when the “journalism” of today softpedals what they did.
I read an excerpt from 1 of those documents: a girl was raped & got pregnant, forced to have an abortion she didn’t want, & they therefore murdered her daughter.
NONE of the “journalism” of MSM has the spine to state that honestly.
& given that speaking required-truth is their JOB, … that’s … a betrayal of civilization.
Epstein seems to have been VERY skilful at manipulating people into undermined-principles ( kind of a human moral-pathogen? among other things: he was human, too, ttbomk, and I don’t want to know more about him, to validate that: vile is vile, but there had to be more than just-that in him. Same as our “heroes” & “saints” are often mixtures, when we get to know the real someone ).
& I think it would be much more objective of us to thank our karma/luck for how we weren’t put in the undermining-force that others failed in, because as nice as it may be to pretend that we’re “inherently” better than others … the blunt fact is that if cultures can form lives as much as the evidence shows they can … then we’d be drastically different had we been born into different-culture, & it isn’t any “inherent” superiority: it’s nurture, not nature.
I think the primary reason we’re not like him/them is cultural-circimstance we were born into.
Only.
I think humankind is malleable by context to that degree.
& loyalty-to-principle isn’t what most humankind are: loyalty-to-gang/family/identity outranks loyalty-to-principle massively among humankind, & people nowadays are just pretending that their current-gang is inherently-good, & masquerading as loyal-to-principle.
This will become biting, when the “masks come off” & humankind HARD-chooses ideology over principles, in the coming months/weeks.
Then the truth will be more “in our faces”.
_ /\ _
When you have riches and power, you still want what you can’t have. That’s what drives them.
When I was growing up in Sydney, heavily involved in drugs, anarchy and living on the streets in squats it was common knowledge there were protected paedophile groups that operated out kids homes.
Worse when those kids ran away and ended up on the street they’d end up street walking, being preyed upon by predators of all sorts.
Most were using because of the horrific trauma they had been subjected to.
I remember being warned about avoiding certain places if a particular predator was our a about cruising. They loved to target young men.
In 2013 we had a royal commission into institutional response to child abuse and it became very clear that children had been raped on an industrial scale.
People like Pell and Clancy (who I was peripherally related to) were not just actively involved but also running protection for dozens and dozens of serial rapists.
With politicians and law enforcement also working to protect these people.
Pell denied numerous victims, even after the priests were found to be rapists and sentenced, compensation and forced countless people to kill themselves.
There is no fate worse then I can imagine for Pell and his ilk. They are a stain on this earth and as bad as the fascists and nazis.
10 million dollar plan. A bounty of 10 million is placed on each billionaire. Their assets are liquidated and put to literally any other use, burning the cash would help stem inflation.
Take their assets and put $10M towards keeping the bounty program going. Take another $15M and put it towards a second (even bigger) bounty. Every day a billionaire’s name gets lottery’ed and killing them wins the big pot plus the original $10M bounty. So every single billionaire has a constant bounty on them, plus the chance of getting lotto’ed… At first that lotto may only be $25M. But as more and more die, that bigger pot continues to grow.
Their private security teams may not be willing to turn against their masters for only $10M… But for $25M? $40M? $55M? $70M? Everyone has a price, especially the billionaires’ mercenaries. Of course, the billionaires would probably start requiring bomb collars for their private security at that point, to ensure they remain loyal. But that means the teams would inevitably weigh the price of a bomb collar vs an easy $10M payout in the first place. And that $10M alone would be enough to have them gunning down the billionaires before they put the collars on.
The rest of their assets go towards a fund for reducing homelessness, bolstering food stamp programs, unemployment insurance funds, getting people back on their feet, forgiving debt, funding Social Security, expanding Medicare and Medicaid, maybe even UBI if the fund is large enough to be self-sustaining, etc…
Brilliant stuff there.
Pull the studs out too. We have no choice but to make a new foundation.
Amerifat here. We could use some light restructuring. Some newer democracies have features I think are improvements that could benefit us if deployed here. But the fundamental structure isn’t that bad, and I’m worried we’ll just get something worse if we try a full rebuild.
The foundations are settler colonialism and racism. Like you said, there are other democracies to look at we don’t need this blueprint.
Ive seen this kind of sentiment around (referring primarily to your initial comment on the OP about making a new foundation, but replying to this one because I wanted to have the context it adds with it). Its a sentiment that sounds appealing (“this thing is hurting us, therefore me must destroy it/replace it” is a fairly cathartic notion after all). The problem I have with it is: the analogy doesn’t actually fit. Government and economic systems simply aren’t buildings. They dont have foundations in that sense, and the things metaphorically referred to as “foundations” do not have the same function and consequences as the real thing.
Take your examples. If you were to remove racism from the country overnight, say you somehow both make individual bigoted people all understand that their perceived enemies are people just living their lives, and adjusted the outcomes of various systems to remove systemic racist outcomes that can exist even without personal malice- that wouldn’t suddenly cause the government to collapse. It’d probably change who exactly gets elected and some of the laws for the better, but while racism has shaped the history of the United States, it doesn’t logically require racism continue to shape it in order to prevent calamity of some kind.
Settler colonialism has a stronger claim to being “foundational” in that the concept describes the process by which the country came to be- but there we have a different problem when one contemplates the consequences of removing it: it simply can’t be removed. Not because of some negative consequence, but simply became there is no way to undo what it results in. Numerous people were killed, and they and their would-have-been descendants cant be simply brought back. Hundreds of millions of people that have an entirely different culture to what would have been now exist, some of those cultures unique to the area despite not being indigenous to it, and it would be logistically impossible to send them anywhere else. The surviving indigenous people can be given some kind of reparation, and the poverty forced on them can be alleviated, but realistically it cant be nearly proportionate to what those groups lost. Unless one has a time machine somehow, whatever the US becomes, even if it was entirely destroyed and built anew, it can never be a society that doesn’t owe it’s existence to a settler colonial enterprise, any more than one can change who ones parents were.
This isn’t an argument against radical change, and I know its rant-y and pedantic, but I see the sentiment of “tear it all down” so often, and think that’s just too vague. It sounds dramatic and radical, but leaves the question of what it means too open. Does it mean “replace all the major government figures”? Probably not, that happens anyway given enough time, without radical changes necessarily occuring. Does it mean doing that, but also changing the mechanism by which those leaders are picked, and maybe also something like the economic model or ownership structure of various institutions? Maybe, though still, apart from the people at the top, a lot of what you’ll get will still be the same. You’re going to need bureaucrats and lawyers and teachers and auditors and soldiers and whatever, or some broadly equivalent roles, no matter how you organize your society, and since the people doing that now are the ones that know how, they’ll probably end up doing the same things under the new order (which could make some cultural problems, like racism for instance, very hard to root out. A biased teacher isn’t going to stop being biased just cause you changed their boss and the laws, for example). Maybe you conclude that that’s not enough, and that one has to change all the laws and ownership structures and bar everyone that participated in administering the old system, even on a local level, from an equivalent role in the new. But that has a rather disastrous history; you end up with a huge number of new and not yet competent civil servants, and a class of people that cannot easily make a living because they are barred from using the skills they actually have, that can turn to crime or reactionary militant groups.
This probably comes off as ranting at you in particular, I’m sorry about that, I just can’t reply to an entire general sentiment as that’s not how the platform works, and I’m sure Im guilty of saying these things too. But I feel like too many calls to action don’t really specify what specific action they call for, just analogies and notions of “there’s something about our society that’s hurting us, we must destroy”, or "we need to do something about [monolithic problem], or “organize” (which sounds like a specific action, except half the time people say it they dont really specify who with or how to do it effectively or what the organization should do once formed, and it’s not realistic to assume those things come naturally to the inexperienced), and I feel like they’d make for more effective tools of political discourse if they did advocate for unambiguous courses of action rather than just the vague result one wants that action to achieve.
Just tossing you levers:
Identity is the “skeleton” on-which ego “the flesh” forms.
Spontaneously-removing-racism’s distortion-of-government would have violent backlash, because it’d cost unearned-privilege greatly.
Political-process selects-for DarkTriad: therefore if anybody wants to create a categorically-better-system, they have to prevent DarkTriad from being advantaged in the replacement, even systematically-disadvantaged ( which they will fight violently to prevent ).
The best-for-the-world & best-for-civilization changes de-politics, de-ideology, make-rational, & make-objective, forcing better-for-the-world & better-for-civilization, but that is politically-intolerable.
Political-motivation & objective-rational-altruism are mutually-exclusive paradigms.
Ideological-identity won’t tolerate world-citizen/global-citizen/gaia-citizen to supplant them from authority.
That guy Franck, South African Black man, who bluntly says that the Whites civilized South Africa, but when the Blacks took-over, then civilization fell-apart, nothing working… he’s anchoring on the wrong thing: it isn’t skin-color, it is what culture someone grew-up-in.
Same as the gaslighters who pretend that it is race which decides criminality in the US, instead of class.
Just check the criminality-rates of Whites & Blacks of the upper-middle-class, the middle-class, & the underclass/ghetto, & then the truth’d be visible, but they WON’T ALLOW that framing, because it cuts into their ideological distortion/belief.
False-framing is a weapon of ideology.
I don’t know if Franck knowingly-rejects that it is culture instead of race.
But the evidence is that in the US, knowingly-rejecting truth is absolutely normal, for ideology.
Therefore, ideology is incompatible with national-viability.
_ /\ _
The foundations are the laws in place and most importantly, the Constitution. That itself is a deeply flawed document that could use a rewrite.
Full agreement, and I think the “tear it down” narrative often impedes thinking of actual feasible ways that we can work to find more equitable paths forward. Landback is a great movement because rather than saying “kick white people out of North America” it says “there’s a lot of land that we can give back to the people we stole it from without drastic consequences to us, we should be doing that”.
I’m a huge supporter of working to give tribes further sovereignty and means to enforce it beyond treaties with the countries that keep breaking treaties with them. Now obviously we need to be prioritizing the wants and needs of individual tribes and nations, but those that wish to be treated as sovereign nations on the world stage should be. Hell, the Navajo Nation wants to be in the UN, and that’s a completely reasonable ask that you can advocate for even if you aren’t in a settler colonial nation.
There are more radical ideas as well, but there are realistic and achievable goals, that we’d be doing a lot more good by advocating for than just virtue signaling about how all this land is stolen and leaving it at that. Also free all indigenous political prisoners and treat the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women as the crisis it is.
The institutions that perpetuate law in this country are physical buildings, occupied by actual people. It is very much physical as it is metaphysical.
You can’t fix a democracy back into being democratic. For example neither of the two parties would allow fixing the issues causing a two party system.
If you need some kind of revolution event to fix the smallest things, you’re better off doing it in one go.
The careful consideration can be expressed by not going too far from the most modern successful democracies.Changes loosely are:
- multi-party system at all levels by never allowing winner takes all in any elections
- removal of lobyism in favor of tech-enabled transparency for high officials (livestream of every meeting, publicky viewable bank accounts, …)
- Severe nerfing of the president, potentially full demotion to a publicity role
- Additional checks and balances like a separate constitutional court for handling laws independent of the courts for people (i.e. break up the functions of the supreme court and move some power away from legislature)
probably more I’m forgetting
Removal of the presidency as a dictatorial office, and replacement with a 9 member democratically elected council
Sorry but the fundamental of that nation were BUILT on yay for me nay for you.
But the fundamental structure isn’t that bad, and I’m worried we’ll just get something worse if we try a full rebuild.
The chance of making things worse is always a risk, but like the original American Revolutionaries, at some point, we have to bite the fucking bullet and make the gamble, because the status quo doesn’t seem to be heading anywhere good.
The American Revolution was largely a counter-revolution by colonial elites. It preserved existing property relations, entrenched slavery, restricted suffrage and replaced a distant crown with local ruling classes.
I’m not sure that’s something to favorably compare to unless you’re intent on historical revisionism.
The American Revolution was largely a counter-revolution by colonial elites. It preserved existing property relations, entrenched slavery, restricted suffrage and replaced a distant crown with local ruling classes.
You tankies are utterly beyond parody.
You can cry “tankie” all you want, but you can’t refute any of it. It was a “revolution” led by slave owners who didn’t want to pay taxes.
You can cry “tankie” all you want, but you can’t refute any of it. It was a “revolution” led by slave owners who didn’t want to pay taxes.
That doesn’t make it a counter-revolution. Marx literally cites it as the example of a bourgeois revolution necessary for the development of a strong proletariat preceding a workers’ revolution. Not to mention the issue was taxation without representation, not taxation itself, as both the States and the Federal government would impose numerous taxes of their own more or less immediately.
Much more nuanced than expected. Okay, yes, the American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and historically progressive in the sense that it unshackled the forces of production compared to continued British rule. It was still far less progressive and far less admirable than the French revolution, though.
Diva was incorrect in claiming that it was a counterrevolution, since there was no preceding revolution to react against, but the rest is all perfectly accurate.
I’m an anarchist tyvm
I’m an anarchist tyvm
Ah, yes, the anarchist position of vigorously bootlicking Russian genocide and imperialism. I keep forgetting that you’re an ‘anarchist,’ probably because of the boot lodged down your throat, which I generally don’t associate with anarchism. It must be a new strain.
Anything to get off to your favorite genocides, right? Of course, you have to play at Uyghur genocide apologia too. But hey, what’s an anarchist without a little simping for [checks notes] the PRC having PEOPLE’S billionaires?
Not only is that a caricature that doesn’t represent my position or opinions, it’s whataboutism. The topic was how our government has always been a bourgeois dictatorship created by slaveowners. It’s no wonder that a pedophile cabal ended up influential in such a government.
I think one of the best changes the USA could possibly do is to move to a Westminster style system, where a coalition is typically needed to form a government. Break the two party system, and force a much more representative government.
Good News: The UK looks like it has finally broken the two party system.
Bad News: The new party is run by an even worse grifter who has his tongue up Trump’s arsehole.
Wait. EAT? I heard about the rest but … say it isn’t so.
The torture and eat parts made this last weekend difficult. My heart still speeds up when I think about those poor children. :(
For real I’m hoping that’s just made up.
I mean, listen to your gut. You hear about the horrific things that happen in the world or see online what happens to kids.
These people are the pinnacle psychopaths who manipulated, stole, and murdered their way to the tippy top.
You have stories about the wealthy paying for human-safaris in Bosnia.
You have stories about people like Albert Fish who would eat young girls.
Unfortunately, there’s a reason Greed is one of the Cardinal sins. It always leads to this. Unfettered greed mean limitless power for deranged individuals.
There are some witness reports that describe some absolutely mind-meltingly horrible acts, but also… I don’t doubt any of it, I have no idea if it’s true, but I don’t doubt it’s plausible and possible.
Where does the eat part come from?
Do you think that’s where they’d draw the line?
I think baseless accusations are just misinformation.
baseless
They’re from police and FBI reports and witness statements, so “baseless” is not accurate.
I’m not saying everything in the reports is 100% true and real, but the fact that they’ve been covered up so hard for so long says that there’s something in there that’s true, which means anything in there could be true.
A lot of the more horrendous things mentioned, people like you are saying are too extreme and “ludicrous” to be true.
But I bet you would agree people did such things in the past, right? Why is it implausible that people are still doing the same horrific things people have been doing for thousands of years? Because you can’t relate?
That’s good, celebrate that. But don’t be naive to just how horrible human beings can be, we get in a LOT of trouble in society when we say “That can’t be true, people can’t be that bad.”
I mean so far nobody in this thread has posted a link to even an accusation, let alone a report or anything in the PedoFiles. Which is why it’s a valid question - where does the eat part come from?
I did some googling and finally found the source I believe. There’s some things here that don’t quite add up. How do you get cut with a scimitar, but leave no scarring whatsoever? And uh, the eating feces from baby intestines thing… I suppose that only makes sense if the slaves were forced to do so, rather than the rich and powerful voluntarily doing it themselves. Unless a bunch of rich and powerful people do indeed have poop eating fetishes, which of course is not ENTIRELY impossible.
I did also however find out about Gabriela Rico Jimenez, who yelled a whole lot of things which now sound a lot more credible in 2009 and then she disappeared forever and she did in fact mention the rich and powerful eating human flesh. Her sudden complete disappearance gives some extra credibility too. She was shoved into a van and never heard from again. I’m more inclined to believe her than the purported victim who reportedly had to go through memory therapy which may not be a real thing that works at all to remember any of it.
I don’t think answering to “where does accusation X come from?” with “Do you think that’s where they’d draw the line?” is productive (yes, it was not your comment, but you’re replying to the reply to that comment). It’s too close to republican logic, where they believe their “enemies” to be so evil by default, they’ll believe anything you say about latinos or trans people. Let’s be better than that. Let’s provide sources when asked.
Literally every single fucking thing this admin and it’s evil fuckwads have said for the last decade and a half have been more than lies, they have been 100% dishonest about even the most mild things, I am DONE “taking the higher road” because that tactic has lost us everything.
We don’t even fucking KNOW if we’re going to have midterms this year, and we’re still hand-wringing about if everything in this FRACTION of the Epstein files is credible.
I’m done, I’m not arguing about this just because some reports are wild and extreme, it doesn’t even CHANGE anything, nobody is going to prison over any of this anyway, get your head out of the clouds and theory and policy and look where we’re at. The only way we turn people is make them SEE how bad it can be if they don’t care and don’t act, we have to shock the population into realizing what they’re empowering by showing that even the narratives of the worst things in the world are being released and nobody seems to even care enough to investigate.
I know evil, I’ve seen evil, I know what they do. Most people haven’t. I hope you never do and manage to keep this skepticism.
Look, I’m not saying that I don’t believe they ate human beings. I just also don’t enjoy throwing around accusations without at least some sort of proof, because as soon as you make one false accusation, the right will use it to discredit all your true accusations too. It’s fucking horrible.
At this point, it’s well established that Trump diddles kids and that half the rich and powerful of the world have also engaged in such activities. That’s something we CAN say, fully knowing we’re not lying and nobody on the right can use this to say “look the lefties are loonies”. But if we grab on to that baby intestine poop eating allegation and then the person testifies that they were actually lying, the right gets a “look at how everyone on the left just ate the lies, everything they believe is bullshit” victory lap.
But the actual worst part of this all is that we DO in fact already know about the pedophilia and nothing is being done. No Trump supporters care. It’s like he said, he could shoot a person on 5th avenue and he wouldn’t lose a voter. So even if the baby eating thing turns out to be completely true… I don’t think even that matters anymore.
Y’all are kinda fucked on your side of the pond. I do hope the people will wake up, perhaps even some MAGA supporters will eventually lose faith in Trump. But the really fucked up part is that the whole shitting his pants video did a whole lot more damage to his reputation with them than actually fucking children.
I think mentioning the incident should always come with a link.
Y’all are kinda fucked on your side of the pond.
This isn’t localized. This isn’t an America problem. It’s coming for you next, in fact it’s already there and it’s just laying somewhat lower than here until they’re ready. Get ready to use far, far stronger language and rhetoric to push back on this spreading infection.
You might think I’m being hyperbolic right now, when you’ve been fighting your countrymen about basic reality for decades you will sound exactly the same.
We also get in a lot of trouble when we just accept anything bad we hear about people we don’t like as true.
I just don’t get dismissing any one report or story out of hand just because it sounds “implausible” by your own moral standards. That’s deeply biased.
Treat the whole thing as unverified or unsubstantiated, but don’t single out individual reported acts and crimes and say “That’s too much.” That’s just your brain trying to protect you. I don’t think we’re ever going to see investigations proving or disproving anything in those files, but it’s naive to think that people who rape and murder children are going to draw the line somewhere. Let’s face the dark reality and use that as our motivation to get involved and work towards dismantling the cult of the wealthy elite, not bury our heads because some things (things that that again, people have done for thousands of years as demonstrations of power) are too horrific to imagine.
We found the pedo
They’ve accused democrats of eating babies plenty. All the proof I need these days.
Literally everything the right accuses others of has been a self-report, like 100% of the time.
edit: also, Epstein helped launch 4Chan’s politics board, which was one of the primary drivers of the entire Qanon/democrats eating-babies and blood rituals narrative, I find that waaay too on-the-nose to be coincidental.
I am with the “fake news” here, but that argument is surprisingly solid given what we have seen so far.
There is mention of one case. It’s the email where someone is telling Jeff that the FBI took witness account of a victim. They mention ritualistic sacrifice with a scimitar. There’s a line saying babies were dismembered and their intestines were eaten.
The subject line of the email is interview of purported Epstein victim
Well that’s just stupid. You got a fresh baby there, and you eat the INTESTINES?
Implausible, at best.
I laughed but GD bro.
You get me.
I am starting to think that people believing this and defending it don’t know what intestines are…
defending it
I think you have some utterly derailed notions of what’s being discussed here, why it’s being discussed and why it’s being taken at face-value right now.
Trump is fighting tooth and nail to only be called a pedo rapist. That’s the best case scenario for him. If that’s where the bar is, imagine all of the even more depraved shit that hasn’t been released yet.
Even if 99% of the files are complete bogus, that remaining 1% is still enough to justify publicly broadcasted flayings for everyone involved.
It’s probably a little more than half. Something about desiring to social climb to those levels just seems to draw a certain type
The exact plot of L.A. Confidential
It’s a plot in LA Confidential. It’s about the consolidation of organized crime under a corrupt police officer, and one of the operations he’s taking over is sexual blackmail.
But he’s also taking over the drug trade, and it’s violence over Heroin following the arrest of a mobster that sets everything in motion.
Half of global high society, apparently
That would be the male half.
J.K. Rowling just had all of her yacht’s travel data deleted for some reason, which is apparently highly illegal. Mostly male for sure, but I doubt the line is absolute.
And invited Epstein to the premiere of the Cursed Child while he was still in prison
That Isn’t Suspicious Timing At All, No Siree!
only a YA fiction author would think this a flawless plan of misdirection and subterfuge.
Just gonna gloss over Ghislaine are we?
Just gonna gloss over Ghislaine are we?
Whoops. I forgot that Ghislaine Maxwell was “half of global high society.” Well, it’s either that, or you forgot what the fucking topic was, but what are the odds of that?
At least a couple of the male billionaires wives went to Epstein parties so no telling if it was just the men.
As a trafficking survivor I can assure you it’s not just men.
I never said it was.
That would be the male half.
Pray tell what you did mean by putting these words in this order then?
First, it was a joke in response to a joke. That much should be obvious to anyone. So it has the accuracy inherent in a joke.
And second, since it was about large numbers of people, it was obviously a claim about the vast majorities and not a statement indicating, for example, that there were zero exceptions.
The offense is more in the responses than in the original comment. The comment first got many upvotes because it’s obviously a joke. But then some people with poor reading comprehension invented offense and responded like it was obvious, then everyone started acting like chickens with their heads cut off. The people who could read and think for themselves didn’t respond because it’s obviously just a stupid joke.
Better luck with your next joke, get well soon 👍
Why the unnecessary sexism?
They said “half of global high society,” so we’re talking about statistics, not whether a few women went there.
So, you could try to accept reality, or you could live in a fantasy world where the vast majority of the powerful elite going to Epstein’s Island for illicit purposes weren’t men. Epstein’s victims were girls. Have you even heard of a boy being trafficked by him? Most people are cis-gender. History is packed full of men seeking power over girls and young women, but now we are going to choose to be blind to reality in favor of political correctness?
Jesus Christ. Just a few days ago I posted here that I was disappointed in everybody in the world, but at the time, I thought it was a joke.
Have you even heard of a boy…
Yes, in fact, I just recently on Lemmy heard about a boy that apparently (allegedly) shoved a tent stake up TACOman’s rectum and then stomped on it. I have no trouble believing young boys and girls were both raped and trafficked. I don’t think history is as hetero-normative as you suggest. Children have forever been a target of the elite.
Well, that’s horrific. I just listened to a bit of his testimony, or whatever you want to call it, and now I feel bad about making that exact point.
But are you really trying to assert that statistically, the people partying with Epstein in order to abuse children are not overwhelmingly male, and that the victims are not overwhelmingly girls? Because I’ve heard quite a bit of testimony and it is about rich men abusing young girls.
I literally responded to a point you made about young boys not being a target, not sure what you’re firing at right now
The context was that I was accused of “unnecessary sexism” for my earlier comment and you’re arguing against me.
If you don’t want to argue that I was being unnecessarily sexist, and you just want to nitpick minor points, then it would help if you’d make that clear.
Nitpick minor comments, like an entire class of minors you implied didn’t exist? Ok pal, have a good one.
