ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
Maybe it was the weather, but that night I found her very alluring.
User ID: 812
Again, there was two years of digging through everything they could get their hands on. Yes, the deleted messages and encrypted apps leave some gaps, but the team still pieced together a pretty clear picture that didn't show campaign level conspiracy or coordination with Russia. It's more like the parent searched the whole house, questioned friends, checked call logs, and even found some flirty texts, but nothing that actually proved the daughter was sneaking out for secret hookups.
They could have just released the files as they promised to do multiple times before and during the election season.
It is perfectly reasonable to wonder why they pivoted so hard, and that reason is pretty likely related to either people in the admin itself or a powerful third party who they wish to protect.
The actual contents of the files are ancillary to the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.
American elites are a pedo cabal, the Epstein files is the grand unifying conspiracy that explains the world, and old Jeff was a Mossad linked predaphile blackmail kingpin puppeteering America towards Greater Israel. Any mention of sexual activity on Little Saint James island is evidence of minor sexual abuse. Absence of details means the real tapes have been scrubbed a long time ago. Exoneration means elite capture, silence is cover-up, and deviant Jews are overseeing the network.
That is the popular narrative. And it is epistemically bulletproof.
Best case scenario is we revisit this fiasco with a little more lucidity once it's ancient history.
The strategy is to not enter the burning building to begin with if you don't have a plan to get out.
Not the first, not the last ladder climber to yank his own rug just to make his rival trip. Recent events should be the most glaring exhibition of a consistent blind spot in Trump’s capacity for modeling downstream second and third order consequences.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
Never. The objective of Russiagate has always been to attack Trump, his legitimacy as POTUS 45, and erode public confidence in his administration. I don't know if an Iran war was always inevitable independent of Trump, but Trump has most certainly accelerated the timeline.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
The Mueller report explicitly concluded it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," despite the Trump Tower meeting, WikiLeaks interest, etc. There was no smoking gun of active collusion, even after the most exhaustive investigation since Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. There is a boring explanation to Trump 1.0's aggressive actions (like trying to have Mueller fired via McGahn); rather than an attempt to hide some deeper conspiracy, it was understandable frustration and defensiveness in response to what they (Trump and MAGA) view as an overreaching, politically motivated investigation that ultimately found no criminal coordination despite two years of scrutiny.
Epstein files continues to suggest something deeper
I'm apparently the only "Epstein skeptic" here, I discussed it in an earlier CW thread. Regardless, there could be a deceptively simple explanation here as well: there is simply no exit strategy here. The "files" are a raw doc dump of anything tangentially related to Epstein. Analogously, any tangential mention of Trump (and other individuals) that's not quite incriminating but still supremely humiliating can and will be used to impugn him as a child rapist. But Trump himself lit the fuse with the "pedo cabal" hysteria, and he probably did not expect it to blow up under his own arse.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
But the ratio feels disrespectful to listeners who aren't already invested fans willing to sift through hours of filler for 15 good minutes. The meandering is the main event, loaded with Rogan specific easter eggs that his guest had clearly rehearsed for. I'll take the press junket thing.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
I can't speak for where the usual TheMotte user stands on these things, this place attracts and tolerates people with well outside the overton window takes without being brigaded by downvotes and redditor insults, as long as they can do so with some sort of rigour and charity.
That said, when I rail against "feminism" as a mind virus, I'm targeting the existing, mainstream, culturally dominant version: the 3rd wave plus progressive bundle that dominates media, academia, HR, policy advocacy, and campus and corporate norms. The version that rarely, if ever, distances itself from female favouring asymmetries (family courts, affirmative action, distortionist history, #BelieveAllWomen defaults, benevolent sexism as privilege, etc.) and almost never features prominent mainstream voices aggressively holding women accountable for exploiting them or calling out female hypergamy, entitlement, invasion of male spaces or bad behaviour as systemic problems rather than individual flaws.
Also, earlier waves of feminism heavily baked in original sin dialectics (men as inherent oppressors, patriarchy as omnipresent original sin women are born into resisting), while lounging off of the comforts of the modern world (which allows for systemic equality between the sexes and offers vocations that women can fill without being bogged down by physical disadvantages), which itself was built upon and continues to be sustained by (mostly) male physical labour. And radfem roots (still influential in TERF corners and academia) strategically seek to halt the progression wheel short of full gender abolition so biological females retain sex based privileges indefinitely. At least the 3rd wave goes the whole 9 yards, with a little more nuanced understanding of systems and not blaming individual men.
But no feminist school consistently critiques female privilege, enforces symmetric accountability, or disavows the bundle of progressive stances that tilt the field toward women in culture war flashpoints. There is no feminist aligned with the mainstream calling out the harmful propaganda pushed by multimillion dollar shows (I'm speculating) like Netflix's "Adolescence", nor the blatant falsehoods associated with its messaging (implied or blatant) that run against actual hard data. I don't take issue with women earning or owning property, but it does not function as a buffet where you only pick what you like. It's a package deal, it comes with all the policy and CW outcomes that disadvantage men. That is why I'll never side with feminists, even when I agree with them.
I'm on my bus home so apologies if this comes across as a brain dump, but I hope my point was sufficiently cohesive.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
Female sexual success is default assumed, that is why virginity is valued in women. It is a choice. A modestly attractive woman can easily gain sexual access to her looksmatch. Male sexual success is not default. It requires social proof, status, dominance, or standout traits to access desirable women. And of course, "success" implies that the women the man is having sex with are at least somewhat desirable.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
as getting attention from girls is the single most important form of status among their peers
Indeed, and I can somewhat understand the sentiment behind attempting to dismantle attached status to male sexual success. But this gives "progressives talking about sex instead of having it". I'd wager it's the conception error that underpins the conviction that conventionally gendered preferences and behaviours in young boys and girls are byproducts of external socialisation, and therefore, can be overturned. Since female sexual success carries no comparable status premium within the culture, the instinct is once again to refashion men in the image of the female ideal.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
For sure, the misogyny is largely amplified by the streisand effect. Even those who unironically push #notallmen are falling into the rhetorical trap of auditioning for women's social approval by "speaking up and calling out their bros". I don't disagree with the sentiment, it's basic human decency after all and both men and women should do it. But I do object to posturing for social capital via feminism.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
Oh I think that. Social media has dramatically hastened the senescence and unraveling of society when organic bonds, cohesion and shared reality were already in a state of entropy. I'll happily freeze the clock to the late 90s if this timeline was inevitable.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
Fair enough but I was posing that query to the anti-manosphere folk, not a TheMotte user. I agree with what you say, but that is not what the usual critics regularly write screeds about. Nor are they the champions of healthy male bonding activities like team sports. Au contraire, it's the same folk who believe (or flock with people who believe) that the Boy Scouts was exclusionary for only allowing boys. The subject of their concerns is always women and being palatable to women.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
there is a strong psychological motivation to generalise from some women's questionable dating choices.
True, and I think this is a thinly disguised "permission" to take the black pill and opt out.
Then they get served algorithmically with more "opportunities to notice" the questionable dating choices
Perhaps, and sure there may be some incentive to not notice the good ones. However, this is also due to the disproportionate share of loud online voices pinning men's dating struggles on some form of personal moral failing, like their perceived rightward shift and the so called manosphere. No man who's struggling will enthusiastically listen to platitudes about feminism, male privilege and women's issues. And they can tell you're gaslighting them because some of the worst men they know don't face these struggles to begin with. You can't preach compassion and empathy for someone's feelings and mock someone else for getting their feelings hurt. The first hurdle for the anti-manosphere folk is to acknowledge certain experiences that may be inconvenient to feminism, so I'd say there is also a reciprocal motivation to not clear it to begin with.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
I saw a thread about Louis Theroux's manosphere documentary. OP relates his teen daughter's alleged words and experiences to make a point about healthy values and teen male behaviours. The current verdict is that boys should have their screen times monitored or limited so they don't get corrupted by the manosphere, and raise them with feminist values. Okay. I agree with some of this. There are certainly incel adjacent online spaces that spiral into nihilism and hate. There are teenage boys with zero offline male role models to mainline this stuff and end up emerging more bitter than buff. Parental gatekeeping of violent porn, gambling apps, or extremist political content seems like basic risk management. If your heuristic is “anything that makes my daughter feel existentially unsafe is bad for my son too,” the monitoring prescription follows naturally. And yes, the generational digital literacy gap is real. Parents are often shocked their kids know the lore. I'd go further, I'm in favour of a blanket social media ban until they (both boys and girls) turn 16.
That being said. This comes just one day after Clavicular's recent clip with Leela Saraswat went viral. FWIW the "boyfriend" commented on Instagram that it was an old prom pic and they weren't dating. But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls? We have a clip of an (allegedly) attached woman melting for a high value male on camera, yet the discourse pivots to “protect boys from the manosphere”. Here's the truth nuke: Clavicular is not an incel. He is living proof of the sexual marketplace the manosphere describes, which is heavily determined by looks, money, height, race, social status, etc. He pulls taken women with minimal effort. Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing. So what is the problem with the manosphere? That it spreads dangerous lies and radicalises young men into subjugating and even killing women? Or that the rhetoric makes women look bad?
If it's the former, I need to see some evidence. Netflix's "Adolescence" made waves last year for catching the so called andrew tate problem that's apparently radicalising 13 year old boys into stabbing their classmates. Never mind the fact that homicide rates in the UK have been trending DOWN over the years, particularly against females. Are we allowed to discuss the harm caused by manufactured hysteria? If it's the latter, then you’re not protecting boys. You’re just delaying the day they notice the discrepancy between official feminist sermons and observed reality. And when they finally do notice, they’ll be angrier for the wasted years. And manosphere critics would tell us they've been "corrupted".
Lastly, since #notallmen was mentioned as a gotcha, can I point out how this "collective guilt" only flows one way? If every man should feel ashamed about the manosphere because we share genitals with them, what about the (overwhelmingly male) miners, linemen, firemen, welders, construction workers, road workers, steel workers, etc etc who commit to physically intensive and dangerous labour everyday to keep your lights on? Do we all get a collective male labour paycheck for that too, simply because we share genitals with the workers in these vocations? You don't need to hold yourself to consistent principles if you have sufficient social capital, like feminism does.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
Getting ahead and blaming Israel is also smart
Yup. Few people among MAGA who are against the war are willing to admit that Trump is personally enthusiastic about it. If POTUS says no, there's nothing the Israeli lobby can do to force his hand.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
4mo ago
80% of 2024 Trump voters apparently support the Iran bombing, so "MAGA is Trump" is pretty spot on. The Iran bombing, Epstein files (which I'm incredibly skeptical of) and Trump's undying love for Israel don't seem to put a dent on his popularity with MAGA.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
5mo ago
I know this Indian guy who got banned from a bar for creeping out some of the female guests, and bro insisted on defending himself instead of, you know, deleting his socials and hopping to the next city over with a new name. He went years prior to this tanking probably a 100 rejections. Talk about persistence. Anyway, about 6 months later, he posted an Instagram reel with a gorgeous Japanese broad celebrating their engagement. They seem to be going good as a married couple almost 3 years on...
Not that I'd rec his strats or try them out personally, but if there ever was a case that persistence really does reward after all (coupled with a massive stroke of luck obviously). Not letting the rejections and shaming to knock his self esteem is deadass a superpower.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
5mo ago
The idea that if you aren't getting laid you must not be praying hard enough is sufficiently pervasive in modern American Christian culture
And any tangible advice is the usual blue tribe rhetoric sprinkled with some macho talk. Don't be insecure! Wife up that 37yo Christian mom with a totally not-unChristian history! Yet, socially stunted 20yo simps probably do line up for her. Just cuz a 5/10M is willing to fuck a 5/10F doesn't mean the reverse is true.
but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men.
I agree with this. Although, a close lady friend asked me a couple times why she's never seen me on a date (my last relationship was in 2021). She asked if I was closeted, I said no. Then the next 10 minutes was her telling me I didn't have to be ashamed and that I can confide in her. I realised even mature, experienced women can't fully comprehend a reality where you could go 4-5 years without anyone showing interest. I won't claim it's 100% not my fault though, the peace is underrated and at this point, a relationship low key feels like an invasion.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
5mo ago
See that's why I mentioned women with stable family backgrounds... for women who've never had a good relationship model growing up, it's not completely surprising that they repeat their trauma cycle. But why do smart, college educated women get manipulated by high school dropouts? IMO there's something to pin on nature here. These women view stability and direct communication as boring. They've lived a boring, predictable life, and now they crave life on the edge. They need the mystery, intensity and emotional distance to make the attraction work. Imagine you want adventure, would you go paragliding or golfing?
There could also be a generational issue, women in developed countries have never had more options in history. Overpopulation and rising living costs have generally made home ownership and childbearing almost unattainable for the middle class. Singlehood among women is celebrated in western culture. If family is assumed not to be on the cards anyway, women are free to explore the darker edges of their sexuality. I don't think this was nearly as common when our parents were growing up.
Hard agree with the last line though. I've been to a few big cities in India, and I was surprised to see similar dynamics play out over there. Which underscores my suspicion that this is just female nature in its raw, dysfunctional glory.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
5mo ago
I think you're underestimating the multifaceted nature of US influence over Israel beyond just the annual aid package (which, sure, is "only" about $3.8 billion but is also overwhelmingly military specific, funding things like Iron Dome interceptors and David's Sling defence systems that can't be easily self replicated overnight). Now yes, cutting that wouldn't bankrupt Israel (they're a high-income economy with a GDP per capita higher than most of Europe, after all) but it would materially constrain their operational capabilities in a prolonged conflict like this, especially when they're already stretched thin across Gaza, Lebanon, and now Iran.
Now add intelligence sharing (the US provides a huge chunk of Israel's real time targeting data and satellite recon), diplomatic cover (vetoing UN resolutions that could lead to sanctions or isolation), and arms resupply pipelines (Israel's F-35s, JDAMs, and bunker-busters are US sourced and require ongoing parts/maintenance approvals).
If the White House truly went all-in on opposition (say, by halting those exports under the Arms Export Control Act or even threatening to abstain on a UNSC vote condemning the strikes), Israel would face immediate logistical headaches and international backlash that could force a rethink. We've seen glimpses of this before: Reagan delayed F-16 deliveries in the '80s over Lebanon incursions, Bush Sr. withheld loan guarantees over settlements in the '90s, and even Obama slow-walked munitions during the 2014 Gaza op. Israel grumbled but adjusted.
You're right that Congress is overwhelmingly pro-Israel, and restoring aid cuts would likely be bipartisan lightning fast. But this situation started with Israel's June 2025 unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear sites, which escalated to the ongoing joint op after Iran's retaliations threatened US assets directly.
It's not purely about defending Israel from an "imminent" nuke (though that's what is claimed). If the US had drawn a red line earlier and enforced it with those levers, I doubt Bibi pushes this far without coordination. I'll have to reiterate @Goodguy here, both Rubio and Johnson's statements feel like post-hoc justification for Trump's decision to join rather than restrain.
For sure, countering Iran immediately appears to align more with Israel's interests than the US', but I'm not convinced that the US has zero strategic interests in this joint op (though what those interests may be, I'm not 100% sure).
One of the main reasons that bad faith actors like Andrew Tait are so popular
The thing is... most "Tate followers" I've encountered irl are completely off brand of what shows like "Adolescence" depict them to be. These men usually display a cluster of traits that fits into the dark triad chad mould who experience near zero barriers to securing sexual/romantic access to conventionally high value women (attractive, educated, stable family backgrounds). I've seen dropdead gorgeous women voluntarily enter and sustain dysfunctional relationships with deadbeats, drug abusers and serial cheaters who treat them like fleshlights.
And these dynamics seem to emerge with little deliberate strategy on the men's part. They naturally elicit strong attachment responses and produce intense dopamine/oxytocin surges during sexual peaks that make the experience feel like an unholy symphony of fear, pleasure, pain and thrill (a recurring trope in women's "dark romance" novels and wattpad stories). And the man is positioned as someone who is uniquely capable of delivering this experience, so the woman becomes behaviourally contingent upon his impulses to maintain access to it.
And incels know this. They do not need some "Andrew Tate" to tell them what they can personally observe in their immediate social environments. They're out here perusing 2 dozen pickup tactics online in an attempt to secure, and fail at, what comes like second nature to Jeremy Meeks, for example. But IMO that's not what they're about. They're mad about the mainstream discourse insists that, unlike male horniness, female attraction is largely meritocratic (and more "refined), and that their dating failures stem primarily from deficient personality or some moral failing.
When narrative collides with lived experience, Streisand effect amplifies some of the rhetoric into reactive extremes. I don't see a structural intervention ameliorating this behavioural sink. A paraplegic can never become a runner, perhaps it's simpler to just break the news?
Picture of the latest shooter (EDIT: Updated link)
And no, it's not the Canadian one.
A supposedly trans shooter opened fire at a high school hockey game yesterday. Three dead, including the perp.
The shooter's daughter reported her father's identity to the Pawtucket Police Department, claiming he suffered from mental health issues. Goncalves later said the shooter, born in 1969, was born Robert Dorgan, but also used the name Roberta and the surname Esposito.
NYPost says that his transition and narc personality was a major point of contention with his family and ended his marriage. Among the killed is the mother of his hockey player son (unknown if it's the same ex).
Apparently he was also a neo-Nazi who espoused anti-trans views himself.
If you're constantly lying and hiding something, suddenly choosing to be truthful and open for once does not rid you of rightful and fair suspicion. Still, plenty of people will be satisfied enough and if you do a proper job from now on you can slowly start to convince them and flip the margins.
I think you're putting too much stock on the mob's purported composure. This is such a salacious narrative that none of the media bigshots and political pundits are about to let go of. This story has to end with arrests, anything else would be too anticlimatic. And the fact that there isn't any camp particularly keen on rehabilitating Epstein (unlike Russiagate) makes it unlikely that anyone not politically and socially suicidal will pursue it, so I have to commend guys like Tracey, Taibbi and Hanania for taking the lead.
Can't be reaping "there's a global elite pedo cabal" theories when it's politically advantageous and not expect people to actually want you to expose the global elite pedo cabal. Play with fire you get hurt.
Absolutely, my most generous 2 cents is that even Trump did not initially expect to see his own name in those files with such frequency. They may not be particularly incriminating, but still supremely humiliating and he deserves the generational aura loss for fanning the flames all these years. But irregardless of opportunistic snakes seeking to abuse moral hysteria, this feverish conspiracy mongering in the face of all facts to the contrary cannot be the antidote.
EDIT: When you see instances like this, which is far from unfamiliar in the recent history of our cultural landscape, when does conceding narrative control to the faceless mob become too dangerous? Who will be held accountable for this madness?
I have a story even more inane. When the Tate panic was all the buzz last year after Adolescence, you COULD NOT go without hearing about this fictional 13yo scrawny kid's "horrific" fictional crime against a fictional girl. My sister's colleagues came over for dinner, a couple and their adult daughter who was in law school. My sister and the daughter went on this big tirade about rising extremism, how Andrew Tate clips were allegedly being dissipated on 4chan... I had to struggle not to give them "the look". Setting aside this amusing implication that literally anybody (even Tate's so called fans) bothers enough to hop on 4chan just to listen to his ramblings, they obviously didn't have any experience with 4chan. On top of that, I know Tatebros irl. But they're not 13yo Jamie. They're douchy rizzlers who don't care for women's verbal validation, because they get in the way of sex! It was uncritically accepted that the garbage (no, I don't care about its technical merits or performances, I consider all woke propaganda hot garbage) was a "documentary", based on real events (but nothing specific, before you press them about it!), that there is this Tate driven effect resulting in a surge in knife crimes in the UK. Except there was one little problem: homicides, particularly against females, have been trending DOWN over the years. But don't let that inconvenient detail impugn the precious narrative!
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
5mo ago
Well, I'll happily admit I'm prone to reading into things when they rub me the wrong way. Still, that's the impression I was left with.
Look at this way: no children were harmed here! Isn't that a relief?
You're assuming this is transactional, rather than a honeypot meant to accumulate influence and/or enable intelligence gathering. There wouldn't be any hush money demands, if the demand is for getting your people to "penetrate ze cabinets" as it were. I don't know how you expect to tie them to specific encounters either, if they take place face to face.
...which raises the evidentiary bar, as this is essentially "god of the gaps" reasoning.
An influence operation allegedly spanning continents requires structure and, more importantly, downstream effects. If the goal was leverage rather than cash, then what are the list of observable outputs and how do you convincingly tie them to these honeypot events supposedly involving minors? Or we could apply occam's razor, question the "survivors" narrative where it actually falls apart, concede that the global pedo cabal story was probably always hot air.
Sidenote: Even if a skeevy email exchange between ol' Jeff and Steve did exist, that cannot corroborate anything on its own. It doesn't even prove lil Suzy is a real person. Are there more than two witness accounts that can put a 12yo girl and Epstein together in his island? Can they corroborate inappropriate touching or "private sessions" with the guy? How did she meet him? Was she really 12 at the time? Where did she live? Who were her parents? What school did she go to? Did no one notice her long absences? How come there are no missing persons report tied to Epstein? Did anyone see a confused little girl outside Steve's residence? How did she commute between her place, pedo island and pedo clients' place? Where is Suzy now? What does she do? What is her full legal name, and is she still using it?
Key facts, even Epstein was probably not so omnipotent that nobody raised these questions.
Bro stole the words out of my brain.
More options
Context Copy link