FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
No bio...
User ID: 757
The agency has been going out of their way to avoid capturing him and avoid prosecuting him. They have actively destroyed evidence and apparently haven't even investigated the Zorro ranch at all. It would be good for the public if they were to capture him, but when you think about the actual ramifications of this case being fully prosecuted it becomes extremely obvious why they wanted to let him continue sex-trafficking children and blackmailing politicians as much as they could.
Why would they do that? The intelligence agencies went out of their way and pulled their weight to make sure he wasn't prosecuted or spent any significant time in jail via Acosta - why would they make more work for themselves by actually finding and capturing him again?
The FBI cited posts by maxwellhill when they indicted Ghislaine Maxwell - though that said I'd actually agree with you when you say that the FBI are retarded and the smallest amount of skepticism derails them instantly.
Epstein did in fact source a large number of girls from Eastern Europe and Russia - this stuff is all over the emails.
Nobody is more consistently wrong than pro-Russian “realist” posters on The Motte. I know nothing about the situation but I know you’re wrong
Hey, if this is what you actually believe I have a proposal for you - I'm willing to bet a few hundred USD that Russia ultimately wins the war, the same wager that I offered back in the days when this forum was on reddit. If us pro-Russian "realist" posters are so consistently wrong, this is just going to be free money for you.
'During' implies that it had already started; they weren't taking any actions against Germany prior to the German government trying to kill them!
And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.
Furthermore, not defending Israel means placing the survival of the Jewish people dependent on the opinions of the Gentiles, unless a sovereign Jewish state exists elsewhere.
Who cares? There are plenty of ethnicities who do not have a sovereign state of their own, and the Jews lasted for quite a while without one. I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years, given what they've done with the state that they actually got.
however, my understanding of it is something along the lines of "Never again will the goyim be in a position to tell us 'You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.'."
Most people in the world interpreted Never Again to mean that there would never be a targeted campaign of extermination on the basis of ethnicity ever again, not that the Jews would have a free pass to commit a holocaust themselves in order to secure more lebensraum.
In your 'Jewish state in America' proposal, would these conditions hold?
Ask the Americans - I only raised that proposal as an alternative to my actual position, so I don't have particularly strong feelings on this topic. But that said... given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own (have fun defending the actions of Ehud Barak) - they'd need a caretaker government for quite some time until things settled down. Personally I don't think they should have any kind of nuclear power at all, but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source, and I don't believe they should become a nuclear power besides). No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!
And if Netanyahu's government were removed from power and a new Israeli government were established in the pre-1967 territory, or at least the areas allocated to Israel under the U. N. partition plan....
No, my actual proposal is that they simply become members of a restored Palestine with full franchise. I'm not an ethnic supremacist, and I don't support ethnic supremacism for jews either - they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world. Otherwise, they can get the same treatment that nazis and ethnic cleansers of any other ethnicity receive - and given that most of the jews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.
I actually agree with you that a lot of people are concerned about the impacts of these apps and tech companies - I try to minimise their impact on my own life and my (as of yet hypothetical) children will never be given unsupervised access to this kind of tech. But the problem is that as someone who lives in one of those nations(Australia), I can see the actual impact and effects of the legislation - which is to do absolutely nothing to stop the pernicious effects of social media, while at the same time forcing anyone who wishes to comment or provide input to the online conversation to provide their face and/or government ID.
I do agree that there should be regulation targeting these apps and that ultimately it would be a good thing for that to happen - the problem is just that the implementation has consistently done nothing of the sort and only really makes sense if viewed from a conspiratorial lens. While it is possible that the government is just incompetent, I don't really trust that they would make mistakes that coincidentally give them the identity of anyone making comments that they don't like on social media, and especially after explicitly saying that they wanted to end anonymous online comments - which Anthony Albanese has actually done.
all the Americans
I'm not an American.
Here was me thinking GDPR, massive pain in the backside though it is, was to prevent data scraping and turning customers into commodities by selling every single jot and tittle of information you hand over to these companies.
Nope, it's because bald eagle screech as it flies overhead, Marine Corps march by, Star Spangled Banner flies proudly in the wind as 'America the Beautiful' is sung by the Tabernacle Choir we hate all the good things!
Did you even read my post? Your comments here have nothing to do with what I actually wrote, which was about controlling communication and speech. European elites, especially in the UK, have a deep vested interest in the restriction of speech and the control of their society through it. Are you aware of the D-notice system that's in use by the UK government, where the government can simply order media organisations not to report on certain subjects? More pertinent to the thread at hand, are you aware of Ofcom and their attempts to censor American websites to try and censor information that the UK government doesn't like?
No, the obvious answer is the true one here. Europe and the UK really really hate that the fundamental, society-altering technology that all of their citizens are using >5hrs a day is completely out of their control, as is the AI that they are hoping will become the new basis of their economy. And they are fundamentally incapable of conceiving that the answer might be less regulation rather than more.
This is in no way the obvious answer. The actual reason Europe and the UK hate the US tech companies, especially recently, is that the first amendment allows for freedom of speech which European governments absolutely cannot abide - exposure of the scandals of the elite and what they are doing is anathema to the corrupt and honestly evil governments that they have in place (see the recent disclosures about Peter Mandelson). Less regulation would in no way achieve their goals of censoring speech and keeping their population ignorant, which is why they are simply trying to use their existing powers to shut down foreign sources of uncensored communication services.
The closest American example is when America legislated the sale of TikTok (did that ever go through?).
Yes, it did, and users are now abandoning the platform in droves due to the removal of pro-Palestinian content, the mandatory amplification of Trump/Zionist content and censorship which means private messages containing the word "Epstein" cannot be sent.
The events to which I am referring involve land which was the territory of the United Kingdom/France/Portugal/&c. becoming not the territory of those nations.
The obvious implication was that India was India, just subject to the British Empire. I think that there can be an exception made for the case of removing the colonial holdings of former empires - it is extremely rare for a rule to not have valid exceptions. I think the Israel/Palestine situation falls into that category.
I doubt they would; there are many Palestinians who want the Jews either dead or living as second-class citizens, and are willing to pursue that by violence, and few who are willing to stop them.
This is inextricable from the current circumstances. During the holocaust, many jews and gypsies wanted to initiate violence upon the Germans, and there were few who are willing to stop them. This is why I also mentioned muscular denazification efforts - if you want to have peaceful co-existence, the people who murdered children and then waited for the ambulance to arrive so they could murder the medical workers need to face justice. If I stole your home and locked you in the basement, would you be willing to accept a peaceful resolution where you remain locked in the basement and I retain all of your stuff without any compensation?
That argument could also support the claim that, by supporting the (Arabs') claiming of territory (the blue areas on this map) via acts like the Kfar Etzion massacre, one is also condoning the killing of non-combatants.
Retaliatory violence is to be expected when peaceful avenues for redress of grievances are rendered impotent - Israel is by the admission of several high-ranking Israelis an imposition upon Palestinian territory. When you unwind the chain of violence backwards, you end up with the Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang and Lehi using violent terrorism to achieve statehood. Defending their actions and the state of Israel means defending this violence and there's no real way out of it.
The NATO expansion doesn't signify; the decision of the Czech Republic/Poland/the Baltic states/&c. to pursue NATO membership was
As I said, I'm not particularly interested in litigating this conflict here (these posts are getting long enough already). If you want to start up another thread about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, feel free to do so and even tag me in it.
I'm not referring to Ghislaine Maxwell, I'm referring to someone with a thirty-year-old conviction for DUI, or a fist-fight, or shoplifting,
Usually, countries with reasonable immigration policies take matters like these into account. Are you proposing that the hypothetical Jewish state in America would be unwilling to take these people in?
And it is reasonable to want the people responsible held accountable. It is not reasonable to want a future Anne Frank held responsible, multiplied by six million.
Yes, which is why I have made the proposals I have - either a single-state solution with intense denazification efforts, or a Jewish state located in America (where presumably the nazis would be able to stay in accordance with American tradition, like operation Paperclip).
And if Germans had been subjected to what Jews have been subjected to over the past two millennia, that might be, if not on the same plane, at least in the same airport.
Honestly, based on what I'm seeing come out of Israel it is entirely understandable why they've been treated this way. If this is what the Jews do when they have statehood, the Romans were right to take it away from them.
Germany wasn't 'wiped from the map' even after doing far worse than even the most extreme accusations of Israeli conduct.
Nazi Germany was. How many members of Hitler's government continued to stay in power in Germany after the war ended?
Where? Where else should a Jewish-majority state be established, and what will become of the people currently living there?
As I said, America. The American government clearly loves Israel, to the point that they're willing to give Israel another 6.5 billion while cutting a similar amount in aid to needy families. I'm sure there are some sections of inhospitable and unpopulated desert owned by the US government that they'd be willing to hand over - they've given far more than that land was worth in financial assistance already.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 9/EFTA01245114.pdf
Epstein wasn't a tax-dodge bro, he was an underage sex slave and blackmail supplier "bro". The reason he didn't need to spend any effort or time securing his work (see all the "had fun raping kids - jeff, sent from my ipad" emails) was because he knew that if he ever got picked up by the security organisations he'd just make a call to their boss and have the case called off - see Acosta giving him a sweetheart deal because he "belonged to intelligence".
The Epstein lead died when he did, because he wasn't stupid enough to actually write down the truly incriminating details.
This is just incorrect - there's at least one former ambassador from Mexico who is getting burned by the revelation that he fathered a child with an 11 year old girl in Mexico. But moreover, it wasn't stupidity that lead to him writing down the truly incriminating details. He most likely believed that his connections would allow him to escape any kind of serious punishment, and when he received a sweetheart deal due to "belonging to intelligence" he was proven correct. Even then, there are actually things that he considered too sensitive to put into an email - see the one where he's asked if he has anyone with influence over Assad. I don't even think it counts as stupidity - why bother protecting yourself from the intelligence agencies reading your email when you can just call up the people in charge of those intelligence agencies and ask them to get you out of trouble?
Was Ghislaine actually a reddit mod?
Several /u/Maxwellhill posts were included as evidence against her by the FBI. Not quite confirmation, but as close as we can get barring an actual confession in my opinion.
We would also have to reject the independence of India and most of Africa.
I don't think that those situations are really comparable. An existing nation changing their head of state doesn't seem to me like it would set a precedent applicable here.
I'm referring to the ideology commonly referred to its opponents as 'wokeness',
I am explicitly against wokeness and social justice politics - I think they were a bad move on the part of the left and made it less effective. My personal conspiracy theory is that it was imposed by bad actors to defang the OWS protests, but I have no evidence for it and it is explicitly just wishful thinking that I hope is true rather than any actually justified belief.
Your acknowledgement that the Palestinians as much as the Israelis need to learn to co-exist with people who aren't them would be quite rare in many universities.
Not in my experience. A lot of people realise that there is a portion of the Israeli population who genuinely have nowhere else to go, despite the vast portions of the Israeli population that can just go back to Poland or France or whatever. Once you throw in real, muscular denazification efforts (i.e. prosecutions for anyone connected to war crimes, like whoever gave the order to bulldoze piles of civilian bodies to that soldier who killed himself) and efforts to achieve justice, I'm sure the Palestinians would welcome the remainder.
I do not condone the killing of non-combatants, even if they are on the same side that started it. However, the Arab forces were not innocent in that regard.
The village itself had actually made a peace deal - who cares what the "arab forces" had done in this specific context? By supporting the claiming of territory via acts like that massacre, you are actually condoning the killing of non-combatants. By supporting Israel's current genocidal efforts, you are supporting and condoning the killing of non-combatants like Hind Rajab or Mohammed Bhar.
Vladimir Putin, with the little green men
I disagree - if you ignore the role that NATO expansion and the treatment of Russian-speakers after the Maidan you're not really painting an accurate picture of what happened. But that argument has been litigated elsewhere if you really want to get into it.
on 22nd Tishrei 5784 (7th October 2023).
Incorrect - Israel had been bombing, blowing up and illegally settling Palestinian territory for quite some time beforehand.
But is that certain to remain the case? If it changes, and the Jews are no longer safe in America, where will they go then? What about those with less-than-immaculate pasts, or those who are likely to be unable to support themselves?
"Less than immaculate pasts" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I honestly don't care that Ghislaine Maxwell or her compatriots aren't going to have a homeland of their own - prison or the bottom of the sea seems like a perfectly fine place for those like her with "non-immaculate pasts".
That is why the existence of a Jewish-majority state is seen as non-negotiable by so many.
Then what a shame that this is what they have decided to do with their state - the existence of a German-majority state is seen as non-negotiable by a lot of Germans, but that doesn't mean Nazi Germany should have been allowed to mass-murder Jewish civilians. Maybe after Israel is wiped from the map they can try again somewhere else, and avoid practicing apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
Then they launched the “we are Charlie Kirk” trend, where the emotional memory of name was blotted out as well;
Wasn't "We are Charlie Kirk" just a piece of AI slop music cynically created to make money from uncritical audiences that then got made fun of due to how incredibly schlocky it was? I think it is far more likely that the song was the result of the market trying to extract money from conservatives than a deliberate conspiracy to destroy his memory.
Hello! My apologies for vanishing but I had some urgent real-life problems (and a vacation) appear. I'm happy to continue this conversation, but I'd rather check in and make sure you still want to continue after this pause first.
- Prev
- Next

The child sex trafficking and blackmail operation targeting presidents, high-ranking members of government and multiple billionaires in important industries run by the intelligence service of a foreign country is not actually something that every single low level police officer or government attorney is kept informed on or told about for very obvious reasons. There's nobody putting out bulletins to every single police officer in the country about how Jeffrey Epstein's child trafficking operation is actually totally fine and allowed - rather, the corrupt members of the government in high places have to deal with this stuff themselves when they are made aware of it (see "belonged to intelligence").
More options
Context Copy link