I still believe that Epstein killed himself. Many people charged with especially heinous crimes such as serial rape, murder, and war crimes have managed to off themselves, rather than face the humiliation of a court trial.
Less people than you think. It’s not easy for a person who isn’t suffering depression to kill themselves. Epstein didn’t suffer any pre-existing depression. And he was a sociopath with no kids so he didn’t feel shame.
He wasn't a sociopath with no kids. He was a narcissistic meglomaniac who literally thought that his genetic code was the future of humanity and wanted to impregnate as many underaged girls as he could.
Epstein didn't kill himself because of depression.
He killed himself because his entire construct of reality collapsed and he knew it was over.
I can buy "The guards let him kill himself because people paid them" because it's really not hard to bribe prison guards.
But sans any actual evidence "He was killed!" is aliens on the grassy knoll territory to me.
I didn’t know about the impregnation bit, I do remember hearing about how he felt having sex on demand was his right and life wasn’t worth living if he had to go without it.
I still believe that Epstein killed himself. Many people charged with especially heinous crimes such as serial rape, murder, and war crimes have managed to off themselves, rather than face the humiliation of a court trial.
Less people than you think. It’s not easy for a person who isn’t suffering depression to kill themselves. Epstein didn’t suffer any pre-existing depression. And he was a sociopath with no kids so he didn’t feel shame.
He wasn't a sociopath with no kids. He was a narcissistic meglomaniac who literally thought that his genetic code was the future of humanity and wanted to impregnate as many underaged girls as he could.
Epstein didn't kill himself because of depression.
He killed himself because his entire construct of reality collapsed and he knew it was over.
I can buy "The guards let him kill himself because people paid them" because it's really not hard to bribe prison guards.
But sans any actual evidence "He was killed!" is aliens on the grassy knoll territory to me.
I think you are overcorrecting for conspiracy WAAAY too hard, the whole thing is sketchy as hell, and not everyone is an armchair psychiatrist to look at a picture in the news and be able to give an accurate diagnosis.
Is there any tangible evidence that he was murdered, or convinced to kill himself? No, there is none. But the whole thing looks super sketchy at a glance, its not as crazy as you think.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
+4
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I still believe that Epstein killed himself. Many people charged with especially heinous crimes such as serial rape, murder, and war crimes have managed to off themselves, rather than face the humiliation of a court trial.
Less people than you think. It’s not easy for a person who isn’t suffering depression to kill themselves. Epstein didn’t suffer any pre-existing depression. And he was a sociopath with no kids so he didn’t feel shame.
He wasn't a sociopath with no kids. He was a narcissistic meglomaniac who literally thought that his genetic code was the future of humanity and wanted to impregnate as many underaged girls as he could.
Epstein didn't kill himself because of depression.
He killed himself because his entire construct of reality collapsed and he knew it was over.
I can buy "The guards let him kill himself because people paid them" because it's really not hard to bribe prison guards.
But sans any actual evidence "He was killed!" is aliens on the grassy knoll territory to me.
I think you are overcorrecting for conspiracy WAAAY too hard, the whole thing is sketchy as hell, and not everyone is an armchair psychiatrist to look at a picture in the news and be able to give an accurate diagnosis.
Is there any tangible evidence that he was murdered, or convinced to kill himself? No, there is none. But the whole thing looks super sketchy at a glance, its not as crazy as you think.
And the staff in prisons and jails covers up beatings and death by negligence pretty regularly. And they cover up murders occasionally (usually when a beating goes too far).
That being said, if you think ACAB, it should doubly be true about prison guards (APGAB?) even if you think Epstein killed himself. Don’t trust them. They are much less trustworthy than your every day police.
Epstein was in trouble for a long time before his arrest, surely any evil cabal worth their salt would have found it easier to just kill him outside of jail
+10
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I originally said, "people are seeing bolsheviks everywhere," and as of date there are no self-described communists that have any power in the US and thus it's just a scare tactic.
They don't have to be everywhere, simply exist and so what if they have no power in America? Do you want them, too? Isn't that good? Do you want a Stalinist as president? Your stance is that Communism is dead, it'snot.
Then you make a post about being ever vigilant about the secret bad communists. This makes you sound like the founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch Jr., who believed Eisenhower was a secret communist.
This makes me sound like JFK. Democrats aren't fond of Communists, never have been. The fact the John Birch Society engaged in propaganda against Communists didn't mean the Communists aren't someone to be afraid of. Look at the world during the Cold War period, do you think the Communists nations weren't something people should fear?
I'm not going to perform apologetics for Mao but the things he wrote and his idea of Third Worldism, as in supporting third world countries and people liberating themselves, was core to the Black Panthers' beliefs. Now with examples like Tibet did Mao act in accordance with his beliefs? No. But the communism was core to the Black Panthers' beliefs by creating a seperate power from the US government and the police to aid their communities.
But you'll defend Mao when Communism is criticised. What about the things he did? He wasn't a philosopher like Marx, he was an incredibly powerful politician with blood on his hands - just like Lenin and Pol Pot. Perhaps but it's not like it's impossible to help their communities without being a Communist. Adding Communism to heir agenda is a double edged sword and aligning with Communism countries with horrific track records on civil rights is more complicated than they're good because they're Communist. Do you honesty think the Soviet Union gave a single fuck about their cause? I don't. What it did give them was a chance to sow more discord in America and divide the country further with race relations, which Russia continues doing today. Communism is more than the Black Panthers and we know for a fact what comes when they take over a country and you want to say on the sidelines as if they're teddy bears. No thanks.
Diminishing how monstrous Mao was isn't arguing in good faith, as well as omitting why people would have logical reasons to not trust Communism.
Do you think Communism is an authoritarian ideology which creates dictatorships?
You know where to look to find these people, the question is - what will you do when you find them?
Inspired by Mao Zedong's advice to revolutionaries in The Little Red Book, Newton called on the Panthers to "serve the people" and to make "survival programs" a priority within its branches.
I'm
But you'll defend Mao when Communism is criticised. What about the things he did? He wasn't a philosopher like Marx, he was an incredibly powerful politician with blood on his hands - just like Lenin and Pol Pot. Perhaps but it's not like it's impossible to help their communities without being a Communist. Adding Communism to heir agenda is a double edged sword and aligning with Communism countries with horrific track records on civil rights is more complicated than they're good because they're Communist. Do you honesty think the Soviet Union gave a single fuck about their cause? I don't. What it did give them was a chance to sow more discord in America and divide the country further with race relations, which Russia continues doing today. Communism is more than the Black Panthers and we know for a fact what comes when they take over a country and you want to say on the sidelines as if they're teddy bears. No thanks.
Diminishing how monstrous Mao was isn't arguing in good faith, as well as omitting why people would have logical reasons to not trust Communism.
Do you think Communism is an authoritarian ideology which creates dictatorships?
You know where to look to find these people, the question is - what will you do when you find them?
They don't have to be everywhere, simply exist and so what if they have no power in America? Do you want them, too? Isn't that good? Do you want a Stalinist as president? Your stance is that Communism is dead, it'snot.
Power lets you do things and if you don't have power you can't do much anything significant. The Bundy family has more power and adherents to their ideology and sovereign citizens have killed more Americans than people who believe workers should own the means of production and not greedy capitalists. Do I want them to have power? If we had a Rosa Luxembourg style communist who was dedicated to democratic ideals maybe. Who said every communist is a Stalinist? You have people like Gramsci and anti-Soviet communists and the communes shut down by the USSR that were communists (putting aside anarchists) and didn't like Stalin. I never said Communism is dead, I said no communist has power in America thus people afraid of secret bolsheviks are worrying over nothing.
This makes me sound like JFK. Democrats aren't fond of Communists, never have been. The fact the John Birch Society engaged in propaganda against Communists didn't mean the Communists aren't someone to be afraid of. Look at the world during the Cold War period, do you think the Communists nations weren't something people should fear?
Why do I care if Democrats don't like Communists? They are allied with the military industrial complex murdering the world and committed to a political stalemate that benefits them. They are allied with the people fucking over the global south now and in the past. I can say that authoritarian states are all bad, I do not have to pick a side. In America, communists were not to be afraid of. The actions of self apellated Communist states during this time was Imperialism with a Marxian bow tied on, yes. Those actions are also all things that western nations have done. The Holodomor and Churchill starving millions of Bengalis doesn't look that different from each other and they were both bad.
But you'll defend Mao when Communism is criticised. What about the things he did? He wasn't a philosopher like Marx, he was an incredibly powerful politician with blood on his hands - just like Lenin and Pol Pot. Perhaps but it's not like it's impossible to help their communities without being a Communist. Adding Communism to heir agenda is a double edged sword and aligning with Communism countries with horrific track records on civil rights is more complicated than they're good because they're Communist. Do you honesty think the Soviet Union gave a single fuck about their cause? I don't. What it did give them was a chance to sow more discord in America and divide the country further with race relations, which Russia continues doing today. Communism is more than the Black Panthers and we know for a fact what comes when they take over a country and you want to say on the sidelines as if they're teddy bears. No thanks.
Diminishing how monstrous Mao was isn't arguing in good faith, as well as omitting why people would have logical reasons to not trust Communism.
Do you think Communism is an authoritarian ideology which creates dictatorships?
You know where to look to find these people, the question is - what will you do when you find them?
I was defending Mao when I said he didn't act in accordance with his ideology in the invasion of Tibet? When did I minimize his monstrousness? Genuinely, actions do speak louder than words.
I think a lot of authoritarian states that apply the label to themselves as being communist were/became authoritarian because they were already inheriting authoritarian structures. The USSR from the autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationalism of the tsars. Maoist China from the warlord period and before that the Qing dynasty. Vietnam from the colonial administration of France. North Korea from Japanese occupation and it's not like South Korea wasn't a dictatorship until the 80s. Not to mention these authoritarian states essentially erupted in places where self proclaimed communists were assured to be persecuted, imprisoned, or killed if they didn't fight. Mao was willing to work with Chiang Kai Shek until the nationalists began a purge of Chinese communists. With the fall of the tsars and the encroachment of western powers, the bolsheviks' only practical moves at the point of the civil war was to win or die. The Batista regime ran essentially slave plantations and tortured their own people to further the interests of corporations. Of course Castro's own expropriation of labor and torture sucks as much as Batista's, but he and these leaders grew up in a world where peaceful means to their goals were shut down economically, politically, or militarily shut down by the regimes they lived in or outside regimes. Does that excuse their actions? Fuck no, but it does lend context to why they turned to such means in the first place. We wouldn't be living in an age of John Lockian Liberalism if heads hadn't rolled and Napoleon didn't set up the spread of intentionally compromised ideals of the revolution. He's not justified either for the Hitler 0.0 stuff he did but the context around history and our current world matters to explain, not excuse, explain, why things turned out the way it did.
I think, like Christianity, Communism has followers that are cringe and much like how a religion based on espousing the virtue of the poor turned to declaring the divine right of kings, Communism is built on making a better world for workers and is meant to bring economic equality where the aftermath of the French Revolution only brought political equality (kind of but not really) but was turned into a weapon (like Christianity) by elites against the poor but that doesn't mean the core doesn't have worthwhile things to it.
Also really not helping the case of looking like John Birch paranoid person by ending off with "what will you do" like the end of a 50's propaganda piece.
glad someone was able to make use of that, but the Black Panthers remain the exception - which is why the conversation was bought around to them rather than the countries Communists were responsible for. The ideology didn't begin and end with the Black Panthers. Its easier to argue for Communism with the BP than Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Edit: I'm sure I could find positive events war criminal George W Bush is responsible for, I'm not going to build a group around his ideology because of it.
Wuhhhh. The core of communism is working for the economical and political equality of people and creating a better world for workers without class distinctions. You want to argue that the idea of vanguardism and the setup of party bureaucracies like with Mao and Lenin destroyed that ideal or at least weakened it? Sure, I agree. George W Bush's core beliefs are dumb conservative bullshit. No duh no one would want to follow his ideas because the core is cancerous. Mao's actions do not line up with his beliefs in an ideology of making a better world for workers, but Mao's words still struck a chord with people willing to fight for freedom and especially of colonized peoples. No shit actions speak louder than words but that's not important to the kid getting fed breakfast he wouldn't have had that morning if the panthers weren't inspired by the words. Could it have been because of another ideology? Sure, but history is not in flux and they did it based on survival programs that this guy advocated it for.
Kadoken on
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Epstein was in trouble for a long time before his arrest, surely any evil cabal worth their salt would have found it easier to just kill him outside of jail
Not if it’s the Cartel members who did the “grunt work” of the trafficking. It’s not like they were monitoring FBI cases and tracking which were connected to them. They aren’t that well connected. But in prison, there is a lot of influence there. Because a lot of money is made in prison. And usually the guards are the targets for it.
Epstein was in trouble for a long time before his arrest, surely any evil cabal worth their salt would have found it easier to just kill him outside of jail
Not if it’s the Cartel members who did the “grunt work” of the trafficking. It’s not like they were monitoring FBI cases and tracking which were connected to them. They aren’t that well connected. But in prison, there is a lot of influence there. Because a lot of money is made in prison. And usually the guards are the targets for it.
Also, killing someone in prison would turn it into a political issue where people who would otherwise be uninvolved will actively seek to help you cover it up. People dying in prison is "normal", and a lot of people want to keep it that way.
Cartel members wouldnt care about him testifying to anything tho.
I mean im just entertaining this presumption for fun. Ultimately its all moot as there is zero evidence he was murdered and an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest he comitted suicide
Power lets you do things and if you don't have power you can't do much anything significant. The Bundy family has more power and adherents to their ideology and sovereign citizens have killed more Americans than people who believe workers should own the means of production and not greedy capitalists. Do I want them to? If we had a Rosa Luxembourg style communist who was dedicated to democratic ideals maybe. Who said every communist is a Stalinist? You have people like Gramsci and anti-Soviet communists and the communes shut down by the USSR that were communists (putting aside anarchists) and didn't like Stalin. I never said Communism is dead, I said no communist has power in America thus people afraid of secret bolsheviks are worrying over nothing.
Should we let them have power then? A reason they're in that position is when they did have power it was abused at disturbing levels. The Bundies never achieved political power like Communists have in this world. I didn't ay every Communist was a Stalinist, do you think Stalianists aren't in Communism anymore? Communism is wider in variety than how you're describing them and they're not all friendly. Except this ignores the fact that the reason they don't have power is for very good reasons and they do seek power. They'd kill to have a revival like Q did with January 6 in America. People thought Q was a laughing stock until they been murdering people and committed terrorist acts and with Communism we don't have to wait to know that's what'll happen. They just did that in other countries. Do you want them to be a potent force in America politics or would you prefer the status quo?
This makes me sound like JFK. Democrats aren't fond of Communists, never have been. The fact the John Birch Society engaged in propaganda against Communists didn't mean the Communists aren't someone to be afraid of. Look at the world during the Cold War period, do you think the Communists nations weren't something people should fear?
Why do I care if Democrats don't like Communists? They are allied with the military industrial complex murdering the world and committed to a political stalemate that benefits them. They are allied with the people fucking over the global south now and in the past. I can say that authoritarian states are all bad, I do not have to pick a side. In America, communists were not to be afraid of. The actions of Communists during this time was Imperialism with a Marxian bow tied on, yes. Those actions are also all things that western nations have done. The Holodomor and Churchill starving millions of Bengalis doesn't look that different from each other and they were both bad.
But you'll defend Mao when Communism is criticised. What about the things he did? He wasn't a philosopher like Marx, he was an incredibly powerful politician with blood on his hands - just like Lenin and Pol Pot. Perhaps but it's not like it's impossible to help their communities without being a Communist. Adding Communism to heir agenda is a double edged sword and aligning with Communism countries with horrific track records on civil rights is more complicated than they're good because they're Communist. Do you honesty think the Soviet Union gave a single fuck about their cause? I don't. What it did give them was a chance to sow more discord in America and divide the country further with race relations, which Russia continues doing today. Communism is more than the Black Panthers and we know for a fact what comes when they take over a country and you want to say on the sidelines as if they're teddy bears. No thanks.
Diminishing how monstrous Mao was isn't arguing in good faith, as well as omitting why people would have logical reasons to not trust Communism.
Do you think Communism is an authoritarian ideology which creates dictatorships?
You know where to look to find these people, the question is - what will you do when you find them?
I was defending Mao when I said he didn't act in accordance with his ideology in the invasion of Tibet? When did I minimize his monstrousness? Genuinely, actions do speak louder than words.[/quote]
Why defend him at all? You've been doing that in your last post and this one. They do, which is why it's important not to diminish them rather than hiding his actions behind the Black Panthers, context and his "core."
I think a lot of authoritarian states that apply the label to themselves as being communist were/became authoritarian because they were already inheriting authoritarian structures. The USSR from the autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationalism of the tsars. Maoist China from the warlord period and before that the Qing dynasty. Vietnam from the colonial administration of France. North Korea from Japanese occupation and it's not like South Korea wasn't a dictatorship until the 80s. Not to mention these authoritarian states essentially erupted in places where self proclaimed communists were assured to be persecuted, imprisoned, or killed if they didn't fight. Mao was willing to work with Chiang Kai Shek until the nationalists began a purge of Chinese communists. With the fall of the tsars and the encroachment of western powers, the bolsheviks' only practical moves at the point of the civil war was to win or die. The Batista regime ran essentially slave plantations and tortured their own people in the interests of corporations' interests. Of course Castro's own expropriation of labor and torture sucks as much as Batista's, but he and these leaders grew up in a world where peaceful means to their goals were shut economically, politically, or militarily shut down by the regimes they lived in or outside regimes. Does that excuse their actions? Fuck no, but it does lend context to why they turned to such means in the first place. We wouldn't be living in an age of John Lockian Liberalism if heads hadn't rolled and Napoleon didn't set up the spread of intentionally compromised ideals of the revolution. He's not justified either for the Hitler 0.0 stuff he did but the context around history and our current world matters to explain, not excuse, explain, why things turned out the way it did.
Why should that get them a free pass for being authoritarian? Communism's not supposed to be like that in theory. The bolsheviks can't blame the west for every bad decision they make, and the civil war was a miniscule part of their history as the Soviet Union. Context only gets so far, that "context" wasn't friendly to their victims. The French revolution didn't become sunshine and roses once the revolution took over, it took centuries to calm down and stop being a hellscape politically there, that description minimises how bad that time period in France was. "Sucks" undersells how bad Castro's regime was. This shouldn't be about how they came to power, it's about what they did in power. Context excuses nothing so why bother sticking on that subject?
I think, like Christianity, Communism has followers that are cringe and much like how a religion based on espousing the virtue of the poor turned to declaring the divine right of kings, Communism is built on making a better world for workers and is meant to bring economic equality where the aftermath of the French Revolution only brought political equality (kind of but not really) but was turned into a weapon (like Christianity) by elites against the poor but that doesn't mean the core doesn't have worthwhile things to it.
"Cringe" is being too kind for both groups. That's Communist theory, we're seen that to be bullshit in the real world with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. "Meant" is a choice word here, something which fails with regimes who justify their actions while they create famines and commit genocide. What's interesting is how these two groups resemble each other, since these Communist leaders made themselves kings in all but name of their countries. The core becomes useless if it's constantly passed over by the resolutions to gain power, then it's not the core anymore it's replaced by something more sinister.
This isn't about the core beliefs of Communism, it's how they're enacted in the real world. Their ideology was crucial in enabling despots to come to rule in Communism's name.
Also really not helping the case of looking like John Birch paranoid person by ending off with "what will you do" like the end of a 50's propaganda piece.
We're back to everyone who dislikes Communists being a conservative again. Stop evoking John Birch, please. Can we please stop pretending the Democrats loved Communism? This was a disappointing response but hardly surprising.
Wuhhhh. The core of communism is working for the economical and political equality of people and creating a better world for workers without class distinctions. You want to argue that the idea of vanguardism and the setup of party bureaucracies like with Mao and Lenin destroyed that ideal or at least weakened it? Sure, I agree. George W Bush's core beliefs are dumb conservative bullshit. No duh no one would want to follow his ideas because the core is cancerous. Mao's actions do not line up with his beliefs in an ideology of making a better world for workers, but Mao's words still struck a chord with people willing to fight for freedom and especially of colonized peoples. No shit actions speak louder than words but that's not important to the kid getting fed breakfast he wouldn't have had that morning if the panthers weren't inspired by the words. Could it have been because of another ideology? Sure, but history is not in flux and they did it based on survival programs that this guy advocated it for.
The core of Communism means nothing if Communists making it ignore it in reality, having good intensions isn't a shield for doing atrocities. They weren't a creating a "better world," had they been history would have been kinder to Communism. I think we differ on Mao's "core," if it was his core as an ideology, he wouldn't have become the monster that he is and this goes for other Communist despots. They showed their true self, and made Communism look bad by association again and again. Fuck Mao's words, he's a charlatan and he shouldn't get any respect the Black Panthers did on his behalf. He didn't govern like they did, their actions were beneficial - his wasn't. Mao's actions spoke of that as a monster by any definition. Mao didn't do anything for those kids, the Panthers did. Mao murdered millions of kids like them, though. Mao's not an exception with Communism, which hurts it more.
Maybe Communism is a means of making a better world, but it won't be when dinosaurs like Mao remain crucial in defining what Communism is. We're seen their path of Communism leads and its not peaceful, it's graveyards and authoritarian. Why would anyone want to follow these people? Just take the good parts of Communism and let Mao and his cohorts legacies die. They make Communism a poisoned chalice when their influence remains.
Mao's in the same league as Dubya, Communist leader like his "core" is being a despot he's not saving the world simply because he comes from the left.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Cartel members wouldnt care about him testifying to anything tho.
I mean im just entertaining this presumption for fun. Ultimately its all moot as there is zero evidence he was murdered and an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest he comitted suicide
If he was possibly going to reveal the particulars of a trafficking network of sex slaves, the cartels are damned sure going to care. Even if he doesn't put a single cartel member in jail, having it hit mainstream US news that prominent business people and politicians are/were neck deep in the trade of sex slaves, particularly child slaves, would have a major impact on cartel earnings. That alone would make the cartels nervous enough to off the guy, easily.
And even if he wasn't directly murdered, he was directly set up by the prison system to enable his death. Given the potential impact of the information he had, there's no fucking way he should've been under anything less than 24-hour observation with personal guards in an isolated area. The only reason he would've been allowed to kill himself is if the prison arranged it for him, so there's still culpability on at least that level of organization.
Cartel members wouldnt care about him testifying to anything tho.
I mean im just entertaining this presumption for fun. Ultimately its all moot as there is zero evidence he was murdered and an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest he comitted suicide
If he was possibly going to reveal the particulars of a trafficking network of sex slaves, the cartels are damned sure going to care. Even if he doesn't put a single cartel member in jail, having it hit mainstream US news that prominent business people and politicians are/were neck deep in the trade of sex slaves, particularly child slaves, would have a major impact on cartel earnings. That alone would make the cartels nervous enough to off the guy, easily.
And even if he wasn't directly murdered, he was directly set up by the prison system to enable his death. Given the potential impact of the information he had, there's no fucking way he should've been under anything less than 24-hour observation with personal guards in an isolated area. The only reason he would've been allowed to kill himself is if the prison arranged it for him, so there's still culpability on at least that level of organization.
incompetence and an industry neglected is the more likely explanation.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
incompetence and an industry neglected is the more likely explanation.
I'd certainly buy that for any average somebody. The prison system doesn't give a shit about trying to keep the average individual alive if they're a determined suicide risk; that costs money to prevent and treat and the prison system doesn't want to deal with that, they want a profitable slave.
But Epstein was the most high-profile prisoner in a while. Treating him like any other prisoner would be a huge risk with or without the intent of enabling his death, but no prison would want the potential heat of just letting him die. Fortunately for the prison, the media was happy to just sort of pave over the incident instead of properly blowing it up; it could very easily have gone the other way and led to outright prison reforms because Epstein knew some shit and it was all lost because, whoops, we put a suicide risk alone and unsupervised in a cell. Who could possibly have known he'd attempt suicide?
I can entirely consider it reasonable to justify the he definitely committed suicide over being murdered, but there's no way I'm buying that the prison system let it happen from ignorance rather than intent. They can easily prevent these suicides when they choose to, and in this case the system deliberately chose otherwise to make sure Epstein would die before he could testify.
+3
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Cartel members wouldnt care about him testifying to anything tho.
I mean im just entertaining this presumption for fun. Ultimately its all moot as there is zero evidence he was murdered and an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest he comitted suicide
The overwhelming evidence says his neck and he was strangled. There was a suicide note, but the neck breaking is not consistent with prison suicides.
I've posted the articles before, but more than half of strangulation suicides involve hyoid injuries. More common in men where the hyoid is lower in the neck and more exposed. And they increase substantially with age, approaching 100% above 55. His injuries were completely consistent with suicide by the mechanism he used.
+11
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I've posted the articles before, but more than half of strangulation suicides involve hyoid injuries. More common in men where the hyoid is lower in the neck and more exposed. And they increase substantially with age, approaching 100% above 55. His injuries were completely consistent with suicide by the mechanism he used.
His injuries are also consistent with murder via strangulation.
It would have been great to get a forensics team in there and investigate. Instead of photograph bag and tag.
They did. There were no people entering or leaving his row or several others except prisoners in cells which had not opened, his door was not opened, there are no marks of manual strangulation or defensive wounds, no organic evidence, and the blanket wouldn't have retained fingerprints.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
They did. There were no people entering or leaving his row or several others except prisoners in cells which had not opened, his door was not opened, there are no marks of manual strangulation or defensive wounds, no organic evidence, and the blanket wouldn't have retained fingerprints.
They did not have a forensics team in there, it was prison guards. They pulled Epsteins body out of the cell, which was violation of BOP protocols, they photographed the scene, bagged everything up shipped it off cleaned the scene and put another inmate in there. There is no way to know if doors are opened or closed, at all since it’s all old school keyed. So all doors or no doors could have been opened or close at anytime.
zepherin on
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Power lets you do things and if you don't have power you can't do much anything significant. The Bundy family has more power and adherents to their ideology and sovereign citizens have killed more Americans than people who believe workers should own the means of production and not greedy capitalists. Do I want them to? If we had a Rosa Luxembourg style communist who was dedicated to democratic ideals maybe. Who said every communist is a Stalinist? You have people like Gramsci and anti-Soviet communists and the communes shut down by the USSR that were communists (putting aside anarchists) and didn't like Stalin. I never said Communism is dead, I said no communist has power in America thus people afraid of secret bolsheviks are worrying over nothing.
Should we let them have power then? A reason they're in that position is when they did have power it was abused at disturbing levels. The Bundies never achieved political power like Communists have in this world. I didn't ay every Communist was a Stalinist, do you think Stalianists aren't in Communism anymore? Communism is wider in variety than how you're describing them and they're not all friendly. Except this ignores the fact that the reason they don't have power is for very good reasons and they do seek power. They'd kill to have a revival like Q did with January 6 in America. People thought Q was a laughing stock until they been murdering people and committed terrorist acts and with Communism we don't have to wait to know that's what'll happen. They just did that in other countries. Do you want them to be a potent force in America politics or would you prefer the status quo?
This makes me sound like JFK. Democrats aren't fond of Communists, never have been. The fact the John Birch Society engaged in propaganda against Communists didn't mean the Communists aren't someone to be afraid of. Look at the world during the Cold War period, do you think the Communists nations weren't something people should fear?
Why do I care if Democrats don't like Communists? They are allied with the military industrial complex murdering the world and committed to a political stalemate that benefits them. They are allied with the people fucking over the global south now and in the past. I can say that authoritarian states are all bad, I do not have to pick a side. In America, communists were not to be afraid of. The actions of Communists during this time was Imperialism with a Marxian bow tied on, yes. Those actions are also all things that western nations have done. The Holodomor and Churchill starving millions of Bengalis doesn't look that different from each other and they were both bad.
But you'll defend Mao when Communism is criticised. What about the things he did? He wasn't a philosopher like Marx, he was an incredibly powerful politician with blood on his hands - just like Lenin and Pol Pot. Perhaps but it's not like it's impossible to help their communities without being a Communist. Adding Communism to heir agenda is a double edged sword and aligning with Communism countries with horrific track records on civil rights is more complicated than they're good because they're Communist. Do you honesty think the Soviet Union gave a single fuck about their cause? I don't. What it did give them was a chance to sow more discord in America and divide the country further with race relations, which Russia continues doing today. Communism is more than the Black Panthers and we know for a fact what comes when they take over a country and you want to say on the sidelines as if they're teddy bears. No thanks.
Diminishing how monstrous Mao was isn't arguing in good faith, as well as omitting why people would have logical reasons to not trust Communism.
Do you think Communism is an authoritarian ideology which creates dictatorships?
You know where to look to find these people, the question is - what will you do when you find them?
I was defending Mao when I said he didn't act in accordance with his ideology in the invasion of Tibet? When did I minimize his monstrousness? Genuinely, actions do speak louder than words.
Why defend him at all? You've been doing that in your last post and this one. They do, which is why it's important not to diminish them rather than hiding his actions behind the Black Panthers, context and his "core."
I think a lot of authoritarian states that apply the label to themselves as being communist were/became authoritarian because they were already inheriting authoritarian structures. The USSR from the autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationalism of the tsars. Maoist China from the warlord period and before that the Qing dynasty. Vietnam from the colonial administration of France. North Korea from Japanese occupation and it's not like South Korea wasn't a dictatorship until the 80s. Not to mention these authoritarian states essentially erupted in places where self proclaimed communists were assured to be persecuted, imprisoned, or killed if they didn't fight. Mao was willing to work with Chiang Kai Shek until the nationalists began a purge of Chinese communists. With the fall of the tsars and the encroachment of western powers, the bolsheviks' only practical moves at the point of the civil war was to win or die. The Batista regime ran essentially slave plantations and tortured their own people in the interests of corporations' interests. Of course Castro's own expropriation of labor and torture sucks as much as Batista's, but he and these leaders grew up in a world where peaceful means to their goals were shut economically, politically, or militarily shut down by the regimes they lived in or outside regimes. Does that excuse their actions? Fuck no, but it does lend context to why they turned to such means in the first place. We wouldn't be living in an age of John Lockian Liberalism if heads hadn't rolled and Napoleon didn't set up the spread of intentionally compromised ideals of the revolution. He's not justified either for the Hitler 0.0 stuff he did but the context around history and our current world matters to explain, not excuse, explain, why things turned out the way it did.
Why should that get them a free pass for being authoritarian? Communism's not supposed to be like that in theory. The bolsheviks can't blame the west for every bad decision they make, and the civil war was a miniscule part of their history as the Soviet Union. Context only gets so far, that "context" wasn't friendly to their victims. The French revolution didn't become sunshine and roses once the revolution took over, it took centuries to calm down and stop being a hellscape politically there, that description minimises how bad that time period in France was. "Sucks" undersells how bad Castro's regime was. This shouldn't be about how they came to power, it's about what they did in power. Context excuses nothing so why bother sticking on that subject?
I think, like Christianity, Communism has followers that are cringe and much like how a religion based on espousing the virtue of the poor turned to declaring the divine right of kings, Communism is built on making a better world for workers and is meant to bring economic equality where the aftermath of the French Revolution only brought political equality (kind of but not really) but was turned into a weapon (like Christianity) by elites against the poor but that doesn't mean the core doesn't have worthwhile things to it.
"Cringe" is being too kind for both groups. That's Communist theory, we're seen that to be bullshit in the real world with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. "Meant" is a choice word here, something which fails with regimes who justify their actions while they create famines and commit genocide. What's interesting is how these two groups resemble each other, since these Communist leaders made themselves kings in all but name of their countries. The core becomes useless if it's constantly passed over by the resolutions to gain power, then it's not the core anymore it's replaced by something more sinister.
This isn't about the core beliefs of Communism, it's how they're enacted in the real world. Their ideology was crucial in enabling despots to come to rule in Communism's name.
Also really not helping the case of looking like John Birch paranoid person by ending off with "what will you do" like the end of a 50's propaganda piece.
We're back to everyone who dislikes Communists being a conservative again. Stop evoking John Birch, please. Can we please stop pretending the Democrats loved Communism? This was a disappointing response but hardly surprising.
Wuhhhh. The core of communism is working for the economical and political equality of people and creating a better world for workers without class distinctions. You want to argue that the idea of vanguardism and the setup of party bureaucracies like with Mao and Lenin destroyed that ideal or at least weakened it? Sure, I agree. George W Bush's core beliefs are dumb conservative bullshit. No duh no one would want to follow his ideas because the core is cancerous. Mao's actions do not line up with his beliefs in an ideology of making a better world for workers, but Mao's words still struck a chord with people willing to fight for freedom and especially of colonized peoples. No shit actions speak louder than words but that's not important to the kid getting fed breakfast he wouldn't have had that morning if the panthers weren't inspired by the words. Could it have been because of another ideology? Sure, but history is not in flux and they did it based on survival programs that this guy advocated it for.
The core of Communism means nothing if Communists making it ignore it in reality, having good intensions isn't a shield for doing atrocities. They weren't a creating a "better world," had they been history would have been kinder to Communism. I think we differ on Mao's "core," if it was his core as an ideology, he wouldn't have become the monster that he is and this goes for other Communist despots. They showed their true self, and made Communism look bad by association again and again. Fuck Mao's words, he's a charlatan and he shouldn't get any respect the Black Panthers did on his behalf. He didn't govern like they did, their actions were beneficial - his wasn't. Mao's actions spoke of that as a monster by any definition. Mao didn't do anything for those kids, the Panthers did. Mao murdered millions of kids like them, though. Mao's not an exception with Communism, which hurts it more.
Maybe Communism is a means of making a better world, but it won't be when dinosaurs like Mao remain crucial in defining what Communism is. We're seen their path of Communism leads and its not peaceful, it's graveyards and authoritarian. Why would anyone want to follow these people? Just take the good parts of Communism and let Mao and his cohorts legacies die. They make Communism a poisoned chalice when their influence remains.
Mao's in the same league as Dubya, Communist leader like his "core" is being a despot he's not saving the world simply because he comes from the left.
You are just talking at or past me for half of my points and you warn me that I'm not speaking in good faith?
Should we let them have power then? A reason they're in that position is when they did have power it was abused at disturbing levels. The Bundies never achieved political power like Communists have in this world. I didn't ay every Communist was a Stalinist, do you think Stalianists aren't in Communism anymore? Communism is wider in variety than how you're describing them and they're not all friendly. Except this ignores the fact that the reason they don't have power is for very good reasons and they do seek power. They'd kill to have a revival like Q did with January 6 in America. People thought Q was a laughing stock until they been murdering people and committed terrorist acts and with Communism we don't have to wait to know that's what'll happen. They just did that in other countries. Do you want them to be a potent force in America politics or would you prefer the status quo?
The big reason we don't let them have power is because the rich and capitalist-supporting governments stamped them out because they threatened their profits and the spread of US hegemony. Yet the rich and these governments will send death squads to coca cola plants and banana plantations to kill unionists in central and south america and will fund prisons and enact policies to increase prison intake and recidivism to keep their prison slave labor. This is different from the Soviets stomping down stuff like IWW work and gulags how? Why don't you ask why the people in our government haven't been barred from power.
You asked if I wanted a Stalinist in power, that is what I was responding to.
I don't see the SRA declaring rebellion and the self named communists that support stuff like Q and January 6th and hope for a red-brown union are niche and seen as extremely cringe by their group.
No I don't prefer the status quo, the world is fucking dying from the status quo. The human effects of climate change are causing murderous heat in the west right now, people like democrats will drone strike weddings to "look tough to conservatives" as Obama said. Our prison system is works upon a cycle of destruction of people to the point they are barred socially from reentering society and then are pigeonholed into being criminals. The people "on our side" in the Democrats are mostly corpratists or conservatives in any other country that is not the US. That and countless more problems says to me there needs to be a new way to proceed and if that new way proceed is based on making a better world for workers, and not the growing alternative we have right now that only promises a "better" world for whites, then yes, fuck the status quo.
Why defend him at all? You've been doing that in your last post and this one. They do, which is why it's important not to diminish them rather than hiding his actions behind the Black Panthers, context and his "core."
I am not defending Mao! The man got millions killed whether through bloody civil war or mismanagement of a famine. I am saying his words inspired others to do good. John Brown was slashing at slavery supporters in Kansas, killed a freedman at Harper's Ferry, and was possibly trying to create a Calvinist inspired theocracy in the vein of the Taliban, but he fought against slavery and his actions (along with others like Harriet Tubman who planned the Harpers Ferry incident) led to support for abolition to swell up to the point that a war that led to the emancipation of slaves came into being among other reasons. Like John Brown, Mao's words inspired others to liberate themselves and do things that the Panthers did.
Why should that get them a free pass for being authoritarian? Communism's not supposed to be like that in theory. The bolsheviks can't blame the west for every bad decision they make, and the civil war was a miniscule part of their history as the Soviet Union. Context only gets so far, that "context" wasn't friendly to their victims. The French revolution didn't become sunshine and roses once the revolution took over, it took centuries to calm down and stop being a hellscape politically there, that description minimises how bad that time period in France was. "Sucks" undersells how bad Castro's regime was. This shouldn't be about how they came to power, it's about what they did in power. Context excuses nothing so why bother sticking on that subject?
I am not giving them a free pass to be authoritarian! I am explaining why they became the way they were, not excusing why they were the way they were. If given the example of dozens of leftist organizations attempting to enact their goals peacefully or with a less violent modus operandi that fail and are stamped then you are going to be pigeonholed into going all the way. Trying to peacefully make a more equal society didn't work for the mutualists, the liberation theologists, and others because they were stomped down. Does that mean thus their violence was justified? No, but it is understandable that they did what they did depending on what you're talking about.
"Cringe" is being too kind for both groups. That's Communist theory, we're seen that to be bullshit in the real world with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. "Meant" is a choice word here, something which fails with regimes who justify their actions while they create famines and commit genocide. What's interesting is how these two groups resemble each other, since these Communist leaders made themselves kings in all but name of their countries. The core becomes useless if it's constantly passed over by the resolutions to gain power, then it's not the core anymore it's replaced by something more sinister.
This isn't about the core beliefs of Communism, it's how they're enacted in the real world. Their ideology was crucial in enabling despots to come to rule in Communism's name.
If it's the actions of big names that's the problem then it's not endemic to communism that they did the bad things. That means they used it as a weapon. I already said people like this were imperialists wearing a Marxian bow. Pol Pot was taken down by other communists (Vietnam) for going too far. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital says that people with glasses and intellectuals (which Marx was!) should be killed. Nothing in it says we have to have five year plans no matter the cost. Nothing in them says there should be gulags and mass starvation campaigns.
Their ideology advocated for a dictatorship of the proletariat, as in a true democracy for workers. Liberalism and capitalism also have core beliefs that are not followed through and their enactment has led to mass suffering. I don't see you wanting to tear that down.
We're back to everyone who dislikes Communists being a conservative again. Stop evoking John Birch, please. Can we please stop pretending the Democrats loved Communism? This was a disappointing response but hardly surprising.
You use their language, you get compared to them. Also I never said anyone who dislikes Communists are all conservatives. Also I have absolutely no idea how you got the idea that Democrats loved communism from my posts. It's clear that pre-Southern Strategy and post Southern Strategy democrats didn't. It's bizarre for you to say that.
The core of Communism means nothing if Communists making it ignore it in reality, having good intensions isn't a shield for doing atrocities. They weren't a creating a "better world," had they been history would have been kinder to Communism. I think we differ on Mao's "core," if it was his core as an ideology, he wouldn't have become the monster that he is and this goes for other Communist despots. They showed their true self, and made Communism look bad by association again and again. Fuck Mao's words, he's a charlatan and he shouldn't get any respect the Black Panthers did on his behalf. He didn't govern like they did, their actions were beneficial - his wasn't. Mao's actions spoke of that as a monster by any definition. Mao didn't do anything for those kids, the Panthers did. Mao murdered millions of kids like them, though. Mao's not an exception with Communism, which hurts it more.
Maybe Communism is a means of making a better world, but it won't be when dinosaurs like Mao remain crucial in defining what Communism is. We're seen their path of Communism leads and its not peaceful, it's graveyards and authoritarian. Why would anyone want to follow these people? Just take the good parts of Communism and let Mao and his cohorts legacies die. They make Communism a poisoned chalice when their influence remains.
Mao's in the same league as Dubya, Communist leader like his "core" is being a despot he's not saving the world simply because he comes from the left.
If communists are not following what's set out in the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and further thinkers that added to it then they're not very good communists, are they? National Socialists weren't socialists either. I'm also already on record saying I don't excuse the actions of authoritarians. Saying people of that group wrote stuff that inspired others is not excusing their actions.
Also removing their influence from communism is happening. It's where anarcho-communism is right now and why outright tankies that want authoritarianism on par with the USSR and Mao are cringe and niche. The Panthers probably took up the ideas of Mao (and Lenin for that matter) because he was the only game in town that really won in his case to take inspiration from. I am extremely willing to let Mao go, but that doesn't change the fact that people like the Panthers were inspired by him and they did good.
No shit he's not saving the world just because he's in a ruling position and a leftist? I don't like Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot either. That doesn't mean their words (mainly Mao's, I have never heard something constructive come out of people who are all in on Stalin ot Pol Pot) couldn't inspire good works and that their core ideology doesn't have worthwhile things. Within the Soviet's framework, amongst the terrible things they did, they built houses for citizens. It's a small bone they're throwing but something none the less. Someone with a fascist or conservative core wouldn't even consider such a thing that wasn't meant to help the race for the former or a scheme to promote further austerity by the latter.
Im not saying that Hillary Clinton, after gaining super strenght from drinking fresh adrenochrome, sneaked into a federal prison in a black hooded robe, and strangled Epstein. Im 98% sure he killed himself, I just think its silly to go "business as usual, nothing happened here you crazies", beacause for most people, this high profile suicide is the first time they get to see how a prison is run.
Also, what is all this anti communist propaganda walls of text? Are we entering a second red scare? And, would people consider the red scare propaganda a form of conspiracy theory?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
There's a lot of pro-communism and anti-communist text walls. Weird. Also, ideologies are judged by their real world results, not for their "intentions".
There's a lot of pro-communism and anti-communist text walls. Weird. Also, ideologies are judged by their real world results, not for their "intentions".
Im not even going to read the walls of text, so Im not touching that topic, my question is if the red scare, that big propaganda campaign, is considered a conspiracy theory promoted by the US government.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Im not saying that Hillary Clinton, after gaining super strenght from drinking fresh adrenochrome, sneaked into a federal prison in a black hooded robe, and strangled Epstein. Im 98% sure he killed himself, I just think its silly to go "business as usual, nothing happened here you crazies", beacause for most people, this high profile suicide is the first time they get to see how a prison is run.
Epstein got treated much better than most people in prison, as is normal for the rich.
If anything weird happened to Epstein I suspect it was not at the behest of anyone we would have heard of - I could imagine something like some Russian billionaire with contacts in the Russian mafia and an interest in not seeing his name in US papers. The Clintons and the Trumps really don't have access to prison assassins.
While the Epstein murder theory is comforting in the fact that it gives order to the chaotic unfair bullshit that is the universe, its just sometimes shity people escape justice and a systemic failure in a prison system arising from sloth and laziness is 10000x more likely.
There's a lot of pro-communism and anti-communist text walls. Weird. Also, ideologies are judged by their real world results, not for their "intentions".
That's fair.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I also think we need to define our terms to stop the walls of texts along with me saying I am sorry I flippantly said you were like the John Birch Society, Harry Dresden. I don't want the USSR. I don't want Mao's China. That's not what communism means to me. This might be a "decimate" or "purgatory" situation where I am stubbornly holding onto an older form of a word when the word has transformed by social patterns. I also count people like Pat Seegar as "communist" even though he was more anarchistic in nature and loathed the USSR. I still stand by the idea that proper Stalinists and even Marxist-Leninist terrorist types are a minority of a minority in America and not a real threat relative to every other threat and that it's lazy labeling by conservatives toward their enemies. I'm also not a communist if it means supporting vanguardist bureaucratized authoritarian regimes. Marx, who literally said partying instead of working even more hours for your boss is truly living (paraphrased), I think would be horrified that Bakunin was right when they argued over the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that such a system system would not wither away with power being given away. People like Caleb Maupin and those like the Russian Communist Party that only relish the memory of the red empire and the iron fist are shitty even if they are communists by name at least. If the second american civil war were to break out and resemble Syria, I would stay far away from earnest tankies who want to recreate those types of authoritarian systems and their atrocities. However, more libertarian communists (like Rosa Luxembourg) would probably exist and I wouldn't run away from those people.
I am also being incendiary and letting out deep emotional stuff that I've been holding onto for a long time because I have no where to express my existential fears and thoughts about this sort of thing. Except to the Maoist rapper I follow and message on twitter. Who isn't into the authoritarian stuff from what I've seen.
TL;DR I'm being a shit, and I want to clear up stuff so we actually get somewhere.
I can't remember where I heard it, but it always stuck with me. I think I got the quote from the history channel, back when they did history? It was something like:
"When you look at the Holocaust, it makes sense in a way. Greatest Criminals, greatest crime. But when you look at the JFK assassination it doesn't make sense. You want to tip the scales in Oswald's favor"
People want the world to make sense. Sometimes it just doesn't. Sometimes a nobody kills one of the most powerful men on earth. The world isn't a story that cares about plotlines, or power rankings or popularity. Sometimes the world throws a curveball that doesn't make sense only because we don't have all the information, and never will.
...he learned of Mr. Oswald’s letter to Mr. Connally, a plea to a fellow Texan to restore his honorable discharge. Mr. Oswald had served in the Marines for three years, but had left the ranks in order to seek Russian citizenship. When he returned to the United States, Mr. Oswald, a poor speller who only completed the ninth grade, had only his honorable discharge to prove his worth to employers. When this was taken away from him without a hearing, he was devastated. This anger, targeted at Mr. Connally, fueled the assassination, Mr. Reston argues, with the intended victim being the governor and not the president.
Which, if true makes the assassination even more senseless - a dumbass who couldn't shoot was trying to take out someone else, and then accidentally killed the president instead. It makes some sense to me in the "we live in the stupidest timeline" sense, though of course it's not definite.
This combined with the idea that the third (and most obviously fatal) shot came from a panicked FBI agent behind the car makes a certain sort of Coen Brothers write history sense.
Epstein wasn't the usual trafficking girls from Mexico/Eastern Europe kind of a guy. He was a traffick girls from the US to his private Island, which he owned, because he was rich, and therefore Girls who usually wouldn't be trafficked, fell for his lies and became traffick victims. The fact that he trafficked American Girls is what allowed him to be convicted in the first place. If he had stuck with poor eastern European girls, he would still be at it.
He didn't troll the slums for victims, he trolled Mar-E-Lago and other high end places where he used his obvious wealth and connection to recruit female staff members. Its why he was so successful at it. Nobody would believe that a billionaire(as he presented himself as), would actually do this.
So if it was a drug Cartel or mob hit, it was probably not for his trafficking. It was probably because in addition to trafficking, he was engaged in some shady financial shit, like money laundering. Kill a guy because you sold him a couple of girls is stupid. It would probably hard to prove even with Epstein testifying(he would have been a snitch trying to get out of jail). Not to mention statue of limitations and extradition problems.
Killing him because he knows where your billions are stashed is makes sense. The Cartels knows that the feds love going after their money and even if it was laundered years ago, there are still ways to get at it. Plus closing a pipeline to launder money would seriously dent their bottom line.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
There's a lot of pro-communism and anti-communist text walls. Weird. Also, ideologies are judged by their real world results, not for their "intentions".
Epstein wasn't the usual trafficking girls from Mexico/Eastern Europe kind of a guy. He was a traffick girls from the US to his private Island, which he owned, because he was rich, and therefore Girls who usually wouldn't be trafficked, fell for his lies and became traffick victims. The fact that he trafficked American Girls is what allowed him to be convicted in the first place. If he had stuck with poor eastern European girls, he would still be at it.
He didn't troll the slums for victims, he trolled Mar-E-Lago and other high end places where he used his obvious wealth and connection to recruit female staff members. Its why he was so successful at it. Nobody would believe that a billionaire(as he presented himself as), would actually do this.
So if it was a drug Cartel or mob hit, it was probably not for his trafficking. It was probably because in addition to trafficking, he was engaged in some shady financial shit, like money laundering. Kill a guy because you sold him a couple of girls is stupid. It would probably hard to prove even with Epstein testifying(he would have been a snitch trying to get out of jail). Not to mention statue of limitations and extradition problems.
Killing him because he knows where your billions are stashed is makes sense. The Cartels knows that the feds love going after their money and even if it was laundered years ago, there are still ways to get at it. Plus closing a pipeline to launder money would seriously dent their bottom line.
Or in this conspiracy theory, there are a lot of dads, uncles, and brothers with some level of association with that class whose daughters, sisters and nieces were victims of Epstein.
And Taken is a dad revenge fantasy movie for a reason.
Personally I think especially with several validated prior attempts, he killed himself because of laziness on the part of the guards.
But there are a lot of people who are happy to see him dead for a whole lot of reasons.
Been watching spooky YouTube videos about Missing 411 cases, which in case you don't know is basically people mysteriously disappearing in the woods, and while some are legitimately very strange I'm increasingly convinced that what actually makes any of this seem mysterious is that our common sense assumptions about things like
1) How easy it is to get separated in the woods
2) How thorough searches of massive wilderness areas really are or how likely they are to miss things
3) How far and how fast kids or people in general can traverse the wilderness
4) How possible or likely it is for people to have some kind of mental episode while alone in the woods
5) How reliable search dogs are
are all just wrong and with a sufficiently large sample size some extraordinary cases are just going to happen.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Wild animals killing humans is really really rare, particularly in comparison to people being stupid
To predatory animals, humans are big, noisy, smelly, and act pretty weird. Most predatory animal attacks happen only because of the rare desperate/elderly animal or because they associate humans with foods they do want to eat. Otherwise, you're talking stuff like snakebites, which virtually always happen because people are impinging on a snake's space and are too ignorant to realize it.
People disappear in the woods because they're dumb. They don't prepare, they don't do research, they don't bring the right equipment, they don't tell people where they're going, they go alone despite not being able to handle it, and the inexperienced get lost really easily and that makes them panic and make stupid decisions. Then they get tired and thirsty and make more stupid decisions. Then they get hurt and die. Or sometimes they just take a bad fall, get stuck somewhere, and die.
And in the woods, trying to find a hundred-something pounds of biomass, alive or dead, among millions of tons of living and decaying biomass is a pretty tall order, especially since sight is restricted even during the day.
The "weird" missing 411 cases usually involve "this person was prepared,trained, and had the knowledge to survive but did things the opposite and died" and the answer is probably either "no they actually werent", "they thought they knew better", and "they panicked"(running from a bear, having a unexpected fall, etc)
This ignores things like "stumbles off while drunk" and suicide attempts.
It's an interesting but way to broad phenomenon that people regularly try to turn into "Aliens" and "bigfoot".
I am willing to bet missing persons reports have a bad track record of getting cleaned up after someone returns from a week long bender or is running from abusive/toxic relationships.
Epstein wasn't the usual trafficking girls from Mexico/Eastern Europe kind of a guy. He was a traffick girls from the US to his private Island, which he owned, because he was rich, and therefore Girls who usually wouldn't be trafficked, fell for his lies and became traffick victims. The fact that he trafficked American Girls is what allowed him to be convicted in the first place. If he had stuck with poor eastern European girls, he would still be at it.
He didn't troll the slums for victims, he trolled Mar-E-Lago and other high end places where he used his obvious wealth and connection to recruit female staff members. Its why he was so successful at it. Nobody would believe that a billionaire(as he presented himself as), would actually do this.
So if it was a drug Cartel or mob hit, it was probably not for his trafficking. It was probably because in addition to trafficking, he was engaged in some shady financial shit, like money laundering. Kill a guy because you sold him a couple of girls is stupid. It would probably hard to prove even with Epstein testifying(he would have been a snitch trying to get out of jail). Not to mention statue of limitations and extradition problems.
Killing him because he knows where your billions are stashed is makes sense. The Cartels knows that the feds love going after their money and even if it was laundered years ago, there are still ways to get at it. Plus closing a pipeline to launder money would seriously dent their bottom line.
Just to be clear, no one that isn't absurdly wealthy would believe a billionaire would actually do this.
Judging from his clientele, and how seemingly well known he was and what he was doing, and who his customers seemed to be, it didn't surprise a lot of them.
In fact, the only reason I'd buy the hit job conspiracies, is because of the disparity between how common knowledge and apparently accepted it was among the ultra rich, and the disbelief that such a thing really happens outside of movies and TV shows, that the public seemed to have about all of it. It's a further reminder that most of us live in, quite literally, a completely different world from the super rich. It's also why so many people seem to so easily buy bullshit Qanon nonsense, because of things like this where our commoner brains can't wrap themselves around this idea that something that is commonly regarded as absolutely abhorrent, seems to just be routine for this tiny population of insanely wealthy people who clearly live lives that we see only very tiny glimpses of. It also further reinforces the idea that the reason they seem so baffled by our struggles with making ends meet, or equality, or living; because they either have no concept of such things, or they don't consider us the same species to begin with. Which would also make it easier to exploit and traffic underage children for sex; they're at best animals to be used for their appetites.
Epstein sticks out to so many, so deeply, across virtually the entirety of political and ideological spectrums, in the way that finding a gameboy in an Egyptian tomb would: we would know implicitly that the world isn't what we thought it was, but also at the same time can't really comprehend what it actually means. EDIT: we can come up with all the theories and tell ourselves as many stories as we want, but deep down, there's a fear we will never know, and that is terrifying.
Epstein wasn't the usual trafficking girls from Mexico/Eastern Europe kind of a guy. He was a traffick girls from the US to his private Island, which he owned, because he was rich, and therefore Girls who usually wouldn't be trafficked, fell for his lies and became traffick victims. The fact that he trafficked American Girls is what allowed him to be convicted in the first place. If he had stuck with poor eastern European girls, he would still be at it.
He didn't troll the slums for victims, he trolled Mar-E-Lago and other high end places where he used his obvious wealth and connection to recruit female staff members. Its why he was so successful at it. Nobody would believe that a billionaire(as he presented himself as), would actually do this.
So if it was a drug Cartel or mob hit, it was probably not for his trafficking. It was probably because in addition to trafficking, he was engaged in some shady financial shit, like money laundering. Kill a guy because you sold him a couple of girls is stupid. It would probably hard to prove even with Epstein testifying(he would have been a snitch trying to get out of jail). Not to mention statue of limitations and extradition problems.
Killing him because he knows where your billions are stashed is makes sense. The Cartels knows that the feds love going after their money and even if it was laundered years ago, there are still ways to get at it. Plus closing a pipeline to launder money would seriously dent their bottom line.
Just to be clear, no one that isn't absurdly wealthy would believe a billionaire would actually do this.
Judging from his clientele, and how seemingly well known he was and what he was doing, and who his customers seemed to be, it didn't surprise a lot of them.
In fact, the only reason I'd buy the hit job conspiracies, is because of the disparity between how common knowledge and apparently accepted it was among the ultra rich, and the disbelief that such a thing really happens outside of movies and TV shows, that the public seemed to have about all of it. It's a further reminder that most of us live in, quite literally, a completely different world from the super rich. It's also why so many people seem to so easily buy bullshit Qanon nonsense, because of things like this where our commoner brains can't wrap themselves around this idea that something that is commonly regarded as absolutely abhorrent, seems to just be routine for this tiny population of insanely wealthy people who clearly live lives that we see only very tiny glimpses of. It also further reinforces the idea that the reason they seem so baffled by our struggles with making ends meet, or equality, or living; because they either have no concept of such things, or they don't consider us the same species to begin with. Which would also make it easier to exploit and traffic underage children for sex; they're at best animals to be used for their appetites.
Epstein sticks out to so many, so deeply, across virtually the entirety of political and ideological spectrums, in the way that finding a gameboy in an Egyptian tomb would: we would know implicitly that the world isn't what we thought it was, but also at the same time can't really comprehend what it actually means. EDIT: we can come up with all the theories and tell ourselves as many stories as we want, but deep down, there's a fear we will never know, and that is terrifying.
Yeah, the part where pizzagate and what elements of that have become part of the Q-Borg becomes unbelievable is in the details, not the general concept. The adrenochrome, the secret tunnels, a pizza parlor's basement, the insanely huge numbers of children involved. All that is crazy talk. Ultra-rich people raping kids and it's basically an open secret within that social strata? That's Epstein.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Wild animals killing humans is really really rare, particularly in comparison to people being stupid
To predatory animals, humans are big, noisy, smelly, and act pretty weird. Most predatory animal attacks happen only because of the rare desperate/elderly animal or because they associate humans with foods they do want to eat. Otherwise, you're talking stuff like snakebites, which virtually always happen because people are impinging on a snake's space and are too ignorant to realize it.
People disappear in the woods because they're dumb. They don't prepare, they don't do research, they don't bring the right equipment, they don't tell people where they're going, they go alone despite not being able to handle it, and the inexperienced get lost really easily and that makes them panic and make stupid decisions. Then they get tired and thirsty and make more stupid decisions. Then they get hurt and die. Or sometimes they just take a bad fall, get stuck somewhere, and die.
And in the woods, trying to find a hundred-something pounds of biomass, alive or dead, among millions of tons of living and decaying biomass is a pretty tall order, especially since sight is restricted even during the day.
People underestimate how big the woods are generally.
If you think about a 15 mile by 15 mile stretch of woods, that doesn’t really seem like a lot to us in modern times because we have cars, but it is 225 square miles. If I drop you in the exact center of that square, it would take you a 7.5 mile hike to get out of it assuming you didn’t get lost at all and knew where you were going. A 7.5 mile hike in rough terrain without a prepared trail could easily take 6 hours. (For comparison, skyrim is only about 15 square miles, and to walk horizontally across the whole map from say Markath to Riften is about 4 miles or so. Also the pc in skyrim runs at a world record marathon pace of about 12 miles an hour). So imagine having to organize a search party for an area with about 4 times the perimeter of skyrim and 16 times the area, with searchers that are probably doing really good to go a tenth of the speed of a skyrim pc. It would be a hard task to exhaustively search that area in a timescale that would make a difference.
And a 15x15 mile stretch of woods isn’t a big forest, its the kind of thing you probably find within an hour or two of major population centers. Go really far out and you can find areas much larger between major roads.
Posts
He wasn't a sociopath with no kids. He was a narcissistic meglomaniac who literally thought that his genetic code was the future of humanity and wanted to impregnate as many underaged girls as he could.
Epstein didn't kill himself because of depression.
He killed himself because his entire construct of reality collapsed and he knew it was over.
I can buy "The guards let him kill himself because people paid them" because it's really not hard to bribe prison guards.
But sans any actual evidence "He was killed!" is aliens on the grassy knoll territory to me.
MWO: Adamski
I think you are overcorrecting for conspiracy WAAAY too hard, the whole thing is sketchy as hell, and not everyone is an armchair psychiatrist to look at a picture in the news and be able to give an accurate diagnosis.
Is there any tangible evidence that he was murdered, or convinced to kill himself? No, there is none. But the whole thing looks super sketchy at a glance, its not as crazy as you think.
That being said, if you think ACAB, it should doubly be true about prison guards (APGAB?) even if you think Epstein killed himself. Don’t trust them. They are much less trustworthy than your every day police.
Why do I care if Democrats don't like Communists? They are allied with the military industrial complex murdering the world and committed to a political stalemate that benefits them. They are allied with the people fucking over the global south now and in the past. I can say that authoritarian states are all bad, I do not have to pick a side. In America, communists were not to be afraid of. The actions of self apellated Communist states during this time was Imperialism with a Marxian bow tied on, yes. Those actions are also all things that western nations have done. The Holodomor and Churchill starving millions of Bengalis doesn't look that different from each other and they were both bad.
I was defending Mao when I said he didn't act in accordance with his ideology in the invasion of Tibet? When did I minimize his monstrousness? Genuinely, actions do speak louder than words.
I think a lot of authoritarian states that apply the label to themselves as being communist were/became authoritarian because they were already inheriting authoritarian structures. The USSR from the autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationalism of the tsars. Maoist China from the warlord period and before that the Qing dynasty. Vietnam from the colonial administration of France. North Korea from Japanese occupation and it's not like South Korea wasn't a dictatorship until the 80s. Not to mention these authoritarian states essentially erupted in places where self proclaimed communists were assured to be persecuted, imprisoned, or killed if they didn't fight. Mao was willing to work with Chiang Kai Shek until the nationalists began a purge of Chinese communists. With the fall of the tsars and the encroachment of western powers, the bolsheviks' only practical moves at the point of the civil war was to win or die. The Batista regime ran essentially slave plantations and tortured their own people to further the interests of corporations. Of course Castro's own expropriation of labor and torture sucks as much as Batista's, but he and these leaders grew up in a world where peaceful means to their goals were shut down economically, politically, or militarily shut down by the regimes they lived in or outside regimes. Does that excuse their actions? Fuck no, but it does lend context to why they turned to such means in the first place. We wouldn't be living in an age of John Lockian Liberalism if heads hadn't rolled and Napoleon didn't set up the spread of intentionally compromised ideals of the revolution. He's not justified either for the Hitler 0.0 stuff he did but the context around history and our current world matters to explain, not excuse, explain, why things turned out the way it did.
I think, like Christianity, Communism has followers that are cringe and much like how a religion based on espousing the virtue of the poor turned to declaring the divine right of kings, Communism is built on making a better world for workers and is meant to bring economic equality where the aftermath of the French Revolution only brought political equality (kind of but not really) but was turned into a weapon (like Christianity) by elites against the poor but that doesn't mean the core doesn't have worthwhile things to it.
Also really not helping the case of looking like John Birch paranoid person by ending off with "what will you do" like the end of a 50's propaganda piece.
Wuhhhh. The core of communism is working for the economical and political equality of people and creating a better world for workers without class distinctions. You want to argue that the idea of vanguardism and the setup of party bureaucracies like with Mao and Lenin destroyed that ideal or at least weakened it? Sure, I agree. George W Bush's core beliefs are dumb conservative bullshit. No duh no one would want to follow his ideas because the core is cancerous. Mao's actions do not line up with his beliefs in an ideology of making a better world for workers, but Mao's words still struck a chord with people willing to fight for freedom and especially of colonized peoples. No shit actions speak louder than words but that's not important to the kid getting fed breakfast he wouldn't have had that morning if the panthers weren't inspired by the words. Could it have been because of another ideology? Sure, but history is not in flux and they did it based on survival programs that this guy advocated it for.
Also, killing someone in prison would turn it into a political issue where people who would otherwise be uninvolved will actively seek to help you cover it up. People dying in prison is "normal", and a lot of people want to keep it that way.
I mean im just entertaining this presumption for fun. Ultimately its all moot as there is zero evidence he was murdered and an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest he comitted suicide
Should we let them have power then? A reason they're in that position is when they did have power it was abused at disturbing levels. The Bundies never achieved political power like Communists have in this world. I didn't ay every Communist was a Stalinist, do you think Stalianists aren't in Communism anymore? Communism is wider in variety than how you're describing them and they're not all friendly. Except this ignores the fact that the reason they don't have power is for very good reasons and they do seek power. They'd kill to have a revival like Q did with January 6 in America. People thought Q was a laughing stock until they been murdering people and committed terrorist acts and with Communism we don't have to wait to know that's what'll happen. They just did that in other countries. Do you want them to be a potent force in America politics or would you prefer the status quo?
Why do I care if Democrats don't like Communists? They are allied with the military industrial complex murdering the world and committed to a political stalemate that benefits them. They are allied with the people fucking over the global south now and in the past. I can say that authoritarian states are all bad, I do not have to pick a side. In America, communists were not to be afraid of. The actions of Communists during this time was Imperialism with a Marxian bow tied on, yes. Those actions are also all things that western nations have done. The Holodomor and Churchill starving millions of Bengalis doesn't look that different from each other and they were both bad.
I was defending Mao when I said he didn't act in accordance with his ideology in the invasion of Tibet? When did I minimize his monstrousness? Genuinely, actions do speak louder than words.[/quote]
Why defend him at all? You've been doing that in your last post and this one. They do, which is why it's important not to diminish them rather than hiding his actions behind the Black Panthers, context and his "core."
Why should that get them a free pass for being authoritarian? Communism's not supposed to be like that in theory. The bolsheviks can't blame the west for every bad decision they make, and the civil war was a miniscule part of their history as the Soviet Union. Context only gets so far, that "context" wasn't friendly to their victims. The French revolution didn't become sunshine and roses once the revolution took over, it took centuries to calm down and stop being a hellscape politically there, that description minimises how bad that time period in France was. "Sucks" undersells how bad Castro's regime was. This shouldn't be about how they came to power, it's about what they did in power. Context excuses nothing so why bother sticking on that subject?
"Cringe" is being too kind for both groups. That's Communist theory, we're seen that to be bullshit in the real world with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. "Meant" is a choice word here, something which fails with regimes who justify their actions while they create famines and commit genocide. What's interesting is how these two groups resemble each other, since these Communist leaders made themselves kings in all but name of their countries. The core becomes useless if it's constantly passed over by the resolutions to gain power, then it's not the core anymore it's replaced by something more sinister.
This isn't about the core beliefs of Communism, it's how they're enacted in the real world. Their ideology was crucial in enabling despots to come to rule in Communism's name.
We're back to everyone who dislikes Communists being a conservative again. Stop evoking John Birch, please. Can we please stop pretending the Democrats loved Communism? This was a disappointing response but hardly surprising.
The core of Communism means nothing if Communists making it ignore it in reality, having good intensions isn't a shield for doing atrocities. They weren't a creating a "better world," had they been history would have been kinder to Communism. I think we differ on Mao's "core," if it was his core as an ideology, he wouldn't have become the monster that he is and this goes for other Communist despots. They showed their true self, and made Communism look bad by association again and again. Fuck Mao's words, he's a charlatan and he shouldn't get any respect the Black Panthers did on his behalf. He didn't govern like they did, their actions were beneficial - his wasn't. Mao's actions spoke of that as a monster by any definition. Mao didn't do anything for those kids, the Panthers did. Mao murdered millions of kids like them, though. Mao's not an exception with Communism, which hurts it more.
Maybe Communism is a means of making a better world, but it won't be when dinosaurs like Mao remain crucial in defining what Communism is. We're seen their path of Communism leads and its not peaceful, it's graveyards and authoritarian. Why would anyone want to follow these people? Just take the good parts of Communism and let Mao and his cohorts legacies die. They make Communism a poisoned chalice when their influence remains.
Mao's in the same league as Dubya, Communist leader like his "core" is being a despot he's not saving the world simply because he comes from the left.
If he was possibly going to reveal the particulars of a trafficking network of sex slaves, the cartels are damned sure going to care. Even if he doesn't put a single cartel member in jail, having it hit mainstream US news that prominent business people and politicians are/were neck deep in the trade of sex slaves, particularly child slaves, would have a major impact on cartel earnings. That alone would make the cartels nervous enough to off the guy, easily.
And even if he wasn't directly murdered, he was directly set up by the prison system to enable his death. Given the potential impact of the information he had, there's no fucking way he should've been under anything less than 24-hour observation with personal guards in an isolated area. The only reason he would've been allowed to kill himself is if the prison arranged it for him, so there's still culpability on at least that level of organization.
incompetence and an industry neglected is the more likely explanation.
I'd certainly buy that for any average somebody. The prison system doesn't give a shit about trying to keep the average individual alive if they're a determined suicide risk; that costs money to prevent and treat and the prison system doesn't want to deal with that, they want a profitable slave.
But Epstein was the most high-profile prisoner in a while. Treating him like any other prisoner would be a huge risk with or without the intent of enabling his death, but no prison would want the potential heat of just letting him die. Fortunately for the prison, the media was happy to just sort of pave over the incident instead of properly blowing it up; it could very easily have gone the other way and led to outright prison reforms because Epstein knew some shit and it was all lost because, whoops, we put a suicide risk alone and unsupervised in a cell. Who could possibly have known he'd attempt suicide?
I can entirely consider it reasonable to justify the he definitely committed suicide over being murdered, but there's no way I'm buying that the prison system let it happen from ignorance rather than intent. They can easily prevent these suicides when they choose to, and in this case the system deliberately chose otherwise to make sure Epstein would die before he could testify.
And that’s it.
It would have been great to get a forensics team in there and investigate. Instead of photograph bag and tag.
You are just talking at or past me for half of my points and you warn me that I'm not speaking in good faith?
The big reason we don't let them have power is because the rich and capitalist-supporting governments stamped them out because they threatened their profits and the spread of US hegemony. Yet the rich and these governments will send death squads to coca cola plants and banana plantations to kill unionists in central and south america and will fund prisons and enact policies to increase prison intake and recidivism to keep their prison slave labor. This is different from the Soviets stomping down stuff like IWW work and gulags how? Why don't you ask why the people in our government haven't been barred from power.
You asked if I wanted a Stalinist in power, that is what I was responding to.
I don't see the SRA declaring rebellion and the self named communists that support stuff like Q and January 6th and hope for a red-brown union are niche and seen as extremely cringe by their group.
No I don't prefer the status quo, the world is fucking dying from the status quo. The human effects of climate change are causing murderous heat in the west right now, people like democrats will drone strike weddings to "look tough to conservatives" as Obama said. Our prison system is works upon a cycle of destruction of people to the point they are barred socially from reentering society and then are pigeonholed into being criminals. The people "on our side" in the Democrats are mostly corpratists or conservatives in any other country that is not the US. That and countless more problems says to me there needs to be a new way to proceed and if that new way proceed is based on making a better world for workers, and not the growing alternative we have right now that only promises a "better" world for whites, then yes, fuck the status quo.
I am not defending Mao! The man got millions killed whether through bloody civil war or mismanagement of a famine. I am saying his words inspired others to do good. John Brown was slashing at slavery supporters in Kansas, killed a freedman at Harper's Ferry, and was possibly trying to create a Calvinist inspired theocracy in the vein of the Taliban, but he fought against slavery and his actions (along with others like Harriet Tubman who planned the Harpers Ferry incident) led to support for abolition to swell up to the point that a war that led to the emancipation of slaves came into being among other reasons. Like John Brown, Mao's words inspired others to liberate themselves and do things that the Panthers did.
I am not giving them a free pass to be authoritarian! I am explaining why they became the way they were, not excusing why they were the way they were. If given the example of dozens of leftist organizations attempting to enact their goals peacefully or with a less violent modus operandi that fail and are stamped then you are going to be pigeonholed into going all the way. Trying to peacefully make a more equal society didn't work for the mutualists, the liberation theologists, and others because they were stomped down. Does that mean thus their violence was justified? No, but it is understandable that they did what they did depending on what you're talking about.
If it's the actions of big names that's the problem then it's not endemic to communism that they did the bad things. That means they used it as a weapon. I already said people like this were imperialists wearing a Marxian bow. Pol Pot was taken down by other communists (Vietnam) for going too far. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital says that people with glasses and intellectuals (which Marx was!) should be killed. Nothing in it says we have to have five year plans no matter the cost. Nothing in them says there should be gulags and mass starvation campaigns.
Their ideology advocated for a dictatorship of the proletariat, as in a true democracy for workers. Liberalism and capitalism also have core beliefs that are not followed through and their enactment has led to mass suffering. I don't see you wanting to tear that down.
You use their language, you get compared to them. Also I never said anyone who dislikes Communists are all conservatives. Also I have absolutely no idea how you got the idea that Democrats loved communism from my posts. It's clear that pre-Southern Strategy and post Southern Strategy democrats didn't. It's bizarre for you to say that.
If communists are not following what's set out in the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and further thinkers that added to it then they're not very good communists, are they? National Socialists weren't socialists either. I'm also already on record saying I don't excuse the actions of authoritarians. Saying people of that group wrote stuff that inspired others is not excusing their actions.
Also removing their influence from communism is happening. It's where anarcho-communism is right now and why outright tankies that want authoritarianism on par with the USSR and Mao are cringe and niche. The Panthers probably took up the ideas of Mao (and Lenin for that matter) because he was the only game in town that really won in his case to take inspiration from. I am extremely willing to let Mao go, but that doesn't change the fact that people like the Panthers were inspired by him and they did good.
No shit he's not saving the world just because he's in a ruling position and a leftist? I don't like Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot either. That doesn't mean their words (mainly Mao's, I have never heard something constructive come out of people who are all in on Stalin ot Pol Pot) couldn't inspire good works and that their core ideology doesn't have worthwhile things. Within the Soviet's framework, amongst the terrible things they did, they built houses for citizens. It's a small bone they're throwing but something none the less. Someone with a fascist or conservative core wouldn't even consider such a thing that wasn't meant to help the race for the former or a scheme to promote further austerity by the latter.
Also, what is all this anti communist propaganda walls of text? Are we entering a second red scare? And, would people consider the red scare propaganda a form of conspiracy theory?
Im not even going to read the walls of text, so Im not touching that topic, my question is if the red scare, that big propaganda campaign, is considered a conspiracy theory promoted by the US government.
Epstein got treated much better than most people in prison, as is normal for the rich.
If anything weird happened to Epstein I suspect it was not at the behest of anyone we would have heard of - I could imagine something like some Russian billionaire with contacts in the Russian mafia and an interest in not seeing his name in US papers. The Clintons and the Trumps really don't have access to prison assassins.
That's fair.
I am also being incendiary and letting out deep emotional stuff that I've been holding onto for a long time because I have no where to express my existential fears and thoughts about this sort of thing. Except to the Maoist rapper I follow and message on twitter. Who isn't into the authoritarian stuff from what I've seen.
TL;DR I'm being a shit, and I want to clear up stuff so we actually get somewhere.
This combined with the idea that the third (and most obviously fatal) shot came from a panicked FBI agent behind the car makes a certain sort of Coen Brothers write history sense.
But so does "George HW Bush did it" so who knows.
Epstein wasn't the usual trafficking girls from Mexico/Eastern Europe kind of a guy. He was a traffick girls from the US to his private Island, which he owned, because he was rich, and therefore Girls who usually wouldn't be trafficked, fell for his lies and became traffick victims. The fact that he trafficked American Girls is what allowed him to be convicted in the first place. If he had stuck with poor eastern European girls, he would still be at it.
He didn't troll the slums for victims, he trolled Mar-E-Lago and other high end places where he used his obvious wealth and connection to recruit female staff members. Its why he was so successful at it. Nobody would believe that a billionaire(as he presented himself as), would actually do this.
So if it was a drug Cartel or mob hit, it was probably not for his trafficking. It was probably because in addition to trafficking, he was engaged in some shady financial shit, like money laundering. Kill a guy because you sold him a couple of girls is stupid. It would probably hard to prove even with Epstein testifying(he would have been a snitch trying to get out of jail). Not to mention statue of limitations and extradition problems.
Killing him because he knows where your billions are stashed is makes sense. The Cartels knows that the feds love going after their money and even if it was laundered years ago, there are still ways to get at it. Plus closing a pipeline to launder money would seriously dent their bottom line.
Counter-point: Capitalism defenders.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Or in this conspiracy theory, there are a lot of dads, uncles, and brothers with some level of association with that class whose daughters, sisters and nieces were victims of Epstein.
And Taken is a dad revenge fantasy movie for a reason.
Personally I think especially with several validated prior attempts, he killed himself because of laziness on the part of the guards.
But there are a lot of people who are happy to see him dead for a whole lot of reasons.
1) How easy it is to get separated in the woods
2) How thorough searches of massive wilderness areas really are or how likely they are to miss things
3) How far and how fast kids or people in general can traverse the wilderness
4) How possible or likely it is for people to have some kind of mental episode while alone in the woods
5) How reliable search dogs are
are all just wrong and with a sufficiently large sample size some extraordinary cases are just going to happen.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
To predatory animals, humans are big, noisy, smelly, and act pretty weird. Most predatory animal attacks happen only because of the rare desperate/elderly animal or because they associate humans with foods they do want to eat. Otherwise, you're talking stuff like snakebites, which virtually always happen because people are impinging on a snake's space and are too ignorant to realize it.
People disappear in the woods because they're dumb. They don't prepare, they don't do research, they don't bring the right equipment, they don't tell people where they're going, they go alone despite not being able to handle it, and the inexperienced get lost really easily and that makes them panic and make stupid decisions. Then they get tired and thirsty and make more stupid decisions. Then they get hurt and die. Or sometimes they just take a bad fall, get stuck somewhere, and die.
And in the woods, trying to find a hundred-something pounds of biomass, alive or dead, among millions of tons of living and decaying biomass is a pretty tall order, especially since sight is restricted even during the day.
This ignores things like "stumbles off while drunk" and suicide attempts.
It's an interesting but way to broad phenomenon that people regularly try to turn into "Aliens" and "bigfoot".
I am willing to bet missing persons reports have a bad track record of getting cleaned up after someone returns from a week long bender or is running from abusive/toxic relationships.
Just to be clear, no one that isn't absurdly wealthy would believe a billionaire would actually do this.
Judging from his clientele, and how seemingly well known he was and what he was doing, and who his customers seemed to be, it didn't surprise a lot of them.
In fact, the only reason I'd buy the hit job conspiracies, is because of the disparity between how common knowledge and apparently accepted it was among the ultra rich, and the disbelief that such a thing really happens outside of movies and TV shows, that the public seemed to have about all of it. It's a further reminder that most of us live in, quite literally, a completely different world from the super rich. It's also why so many people seem to so easily buy bullshit Qanon nonsense, because of things like this where our commoner brains can't wrap themselves around this idea that something that is commonly regarded as absolutely abhorrent, seems to just be routine for this tiny population of insanely wealthy people who clearly live lives that we see only very tiny glimpses of. It also further reinforces the idea that the reason they seem so baffled by our struggles with making ends meet, or equality, or living; because they either have no concept of such things, or they don't consider us the same species to begin with. Which would also make it easier to exploit and traffic underage children for sex; they're at best animals to be used for their appetites.
Epstein sticks out to so many, so deeply, across virtually the entirety of political and ideological spectrums, in the way that finding a gameboy in an Egyptian tomb would: we would know implicitly that the world isn't what we thought it was, but also at the same time can't really comprehend what it actually means. EDIT: we can come up with all the theories and tell ourselves as many stories as we want, but deep down, there's a fear we will never know, and that is terrifying.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Yeah, the part where pizzagate and what elements of that have become part of the Q-Borg becomes unbelievable is in the details, not the general concept. The adrenochrome, the secret tunnels, a pizza parlor's basement, the insanely huge numbers of children involved. All that is crazy talk. Ultra-rich people raping kids and it's basically an open secret within that social strata? That's Epstein.
People underestimate how big the woods are generally.
If you think about a 15 mile by 15 mile stretch of woods, that doesn’t really seem like a lot to us in modern times because we have cars, but it is 225 square miles. If I drop you in the exact center of that square, it would take you a 7.5 mile hike to get out of it assuming you didn’t get lost at all and knew where you were going. A 7.5 mile hike in rough terrain without a prepared trail could easily take 6 hours. (For comparison, skyrim is only about 15 square miles, and to walk horizontally across the whole map from say Markath to Riften is about 4 miles or so. Also the pc in skyrim runs at a world record marathon pace of about 12 miles an hour). So imagine having to organize a search party for an area with about 4 times the perimeter of skyrim and 16 times the area, with searchers that are probably doing really good to go a tenth of the speed of a skyrim pc. It would be a hard task to exhaustively search that area in a timescale that would make a difference.
And a 15x15 mile stretch of woods isn’t a big forest, its the kind of thing you probably find within an hour or two of major population centers. Go really far out and you can find areas much larger between major roads.