ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
Maybe it was the weather, but that night I found her very alluring.
User ID: 812
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
2d 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
16d 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
16d 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
16d 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
16d 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
1mo 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.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1mo ago
See even if we live to see 100% of all the Epstein files unredacted, including those concealed by the Massie/Khanna bill, the mega narrative is never gonna unravel now.
If those files put "Trump" and "sex" together 600,000 times in Epstein's island, the obvious takeaway is Old Don is a pedo rapist. Even if his supposed "victims" were adult women who retrofitted their episodes with Epstein as "grooming" for multimillion dollar settlements. Because popular imagination is convinced that any kind of sexual activity that took place in that island involved some kind of child sexual abuse. If they did release the files and it was a whole lot of nothing, then obviously all the "real files" were scrubbed long ago Parallax Corp style. If they sit on their hands and do nothing, what the hell are they covering up? The facts don't matter anymore. Not even the most exhaustive documentary review or adjudicated exoneration vindicating the named individuals is convincing anyone. I checked reddit, well, not to say everyone outright buys the cannibalism and 9yo victim stories, but it's certainly in the ballpark. Maybe the global elite is shitting bricks, except it is less about the contents of these files and more about the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1mo ago
The settlements which were also forked over to Annie Farmer and Anouska De Georgiou? Read the trial transcripts, they're very eye opening:
Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I'll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.
Q. After you filed that lawsuit, did you participate in a victim compensation fund for victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
A. I did.
Q. Do you remember what year that fund started accepting applications?
A. I believe that was in early 2020.
Q. What did you do as part of that fund?
A. I, with my attorneys, there was an application process. They interviewed me and they put together some materials about, you know, my story.
Q. How much money did the fund award you?
A. $1.5 million.
Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?
A. It came, yeah, from the victims' compensation fund.
Anouska, pseudonym Kate (odd considering she'd gone public with her real identity at least once before but I digress):
Members of the jury, before we begin the direct, I have a limiting instruction. You will hear testimony from the next witness about interactions that she says she had with the defendant and Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the witness was over the relevant age of consent at the relevant time period, any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. For that reason, I have directed the government not to ask this witness about the details of any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein.
I instruct you that this witness is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment. To the extent you conclude her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it. However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein, nor may you consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any crimes charged in the indictment.
Have you participated in a compensation fund called the Epstein's Victims' Compensation Program?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do as part of that fund?
A. I had an interview with a forensic psychologist and I submitted a claim form.
Q. How much money did the fund pay you?
A. $3.25 million.
Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?
A. Yes.
Emphasis mine. And check out 31 year old Anouska offering to send nudes to Epstein when he was incarcerated in 2008. And yet, they're paraded as "survivors" by media and public alike. It's been a field day for sure, with the defendant dead and all. That's not to mention the other survivors making shoddy allegations but whose accounts remain immune to a grain of scrutiny cuz who wants to start their day with pedo allegations. We know that cases like this collapse the public’s tolerance for procedural nuance. Who cares that it's been legally established that at least two of these "survivors" weren't survivors after all? This is an all-you-want buffet and ol' Jeff is the mega canvas of all moral depravities you can think of: global pedo cabal, satanism, cannibalism, blackmail, Jews. No one wants to be caught dead defending that guy!
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1mo ago
An FBI memo had the names of 1000 victims and the Epstein victim fund + BoA settled with many victims. As far as I know we don’t have a large sample size of victim testimonies publicly available, but Virginia Giuffre is one person who claimed to have been trafficked while underage to multiple men. I don’t think many women want to be publicly known as a trafficking victim.
Giuffre is actually not a credible source. In fact, there are accusations, levelled by another victim, of Giuffre (adult at the time) herself being an Epstein recruiter. She also retracted 8 years of very detailed claims of sexual activity with Dershowitz.
I don't have much to say on the shady dealings between Epstein and Wexner, could it plausibly theoretically be the case that a creepy pervy bigshot was trafficking underage girls to another creepy pervy bigshot? Perhaps, or maybe Epstein "simply" knew where the bodies were.
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1mo ago
This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it?
Okay I should probably clarify first that my intention is not to defend Trump or Clinton or anyone else specifically, that is why I refrained name dropping any R or D in my OP. All of those are perfectly valid questions, and indeed the optics of staggered releases, redactions, and rhetorical overpromising warrant distrust (and maybe even disgrace) after years of grandiose “client list” language. What I'm getting at is epistemic proportionality. When key accusers have recanted major allegations, contradicted earlier statements, or demonstrated patterns of embellishment, well, not saying you should automatically invalidate all claims. But it does materially weaken the scaffolding required to sustain the theory of a coordinated, global pedo enterprise. If the most explosive extensions of the story (global ring, systematic third party trafficking, blackmail architecture) rest disproportionately on accounts that later wobble under scrutiny, isn't it fair to expect a greater evidentiary threshold?
ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
1mo ago
See, that's a Hollywood tier cinematic standard. Of course there was never going to be an email that read like a cartoon villain memo. Sophisticated people operating in legally and socially catastrophic territory don’t usually incriminate themselves in plaintext. That’s not how white collar crime, corruption, or even ordinary conspiracies tend to surface.
If there was a genuine multi client trafficking and blackmail apparatus, particularly one implicating heads of state, billionaires, and intelligence services, we would expect to see more than ambiguous proximity and social overlap. We’d expect repeated third party victim accounts converging on the same powerful clients. We’d expect financial structures that clearly map to services rendered beyond “social hosting.” We’d expect leverage events, like documented attempts at coercion, extortion demands, hush money escalations that can be tied to specific encounters. We’d expect at least one cooperating witness able to describe the system mechanics in detail.
But what we do seem to have publicly is a wealthy predator who cultivated proximity to power, exploited minors in earlier periods, and later surrounded himself with morally dubious but not obviously coerced adult environments involving other high profile individuals.
Well,we're getting somewhere. Last we had this conversation here, I almost had the impression he's just a poor boy that dindu nothing.
Somehow I doubt there was a "last time" anyone implied that, but can we at least agree that we should first try sifting the ore from the slag before declaring we've struck gold?
The FBI says Epstein wasn't trafficking women for powerful men.
It's tempting to say "cover up", and this saga has united all camps on the lurid "pedo cabal" narrative. We were told back in November that journalists weren't allowed to ask questions to the alleged survivors, and it seems at least one of the survivors' testimony at Maxwell's trial was questionable:
Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.
She (Annie Farmer) acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.
https://x.com/mattforney/status/2021297917424734429#m
I don't like to quote Forney, but this is another "survivor" there's reason to be skeptical about.
The “other victim” Brown references is Sarah Ransome. Who is Sarah Ransome? She’s a person who says she came to New York City from London, by way of South Africa, when she was 22 years old. So already, right off the bat, nothing Ransome says — even if we were to take it all at face value — would corroborate anything remotely related to any pedophilic sex-trafficking enterprise. Nonetheless, here are some noteworthy facts about Ransome. She said that when she first arrived in NYC, in 2006, she generated income by working with an “agency,” through which she would be “paid to spend dinner with a gentleman.” For such dinners, she said, she would receive $1,500. On certain occasions, she engaged in sexual relations with these “gentlemen” on her “own accord” — because, she said, sometimes they “happened to be really good looking.” So that’s what this adult, Sarah Ransome, was doing at the time she later claimed she was brutally enslaved in a heinous sex-trafficking ring.
When she became acquainted with Epstein, Ransome said, he began to pay for all her living expenses, including accommodations (an elegant apartment on the Upper East Side), transportation, food, and medical visits. She started traveling with Epstein on his private jet to his private island, with the understanding that she was to be available to provide him with massages upon request. During one of these massage sessions, she said, Epstein asked her to undress and lie down on the massage table, which she did. Epstein then started to perform a massage on Ransome, she said, and it turned sexual. Ransome was asked if she told Epstein to stop. “No, I didn’t,” she said. She confirmed that she had an orgasm during the encounter.
I grant that “Convicted sex offender did not, in fact, abuse this specific accuser” isn't a headline that's likely to win any awards for tact, but I'm still vexed that we are expected to grant “survivor testimony” near unqeustioned social immunity even when the factual record (sometimes to a legal standard) has already established that no such abuse occurred in the instance alleged.
Interestingly, the latest files revealed that Epstein had recommended his own lawyer to Robert Kraft to beat charges (against Kraft) of trafficking women from China. Instead, all charges against Kraft and 24 other men were dropped, and it was four of those women (aged 41 to 60) whom he allegedly trafficked who were arrested, charged and convicted.
Irregardless of any new developments in this case, the public and all political camps have latched on to this "pedo cabal" narrative to let it unravel. Epstein appears to have been a sexual predator who, in at least one period of his life, did engage in conduct meeting trafficking definitions involving minors (to himself). But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.
EDIT: I'm heading to work, will read the replies later, but I gotta drop this piece by Michael Tracey, as it's pretty damning regarding Virginia Roberts Giuffre's credibility. Here are the article highlights:
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York found the marquee Epstein “survivor,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also known as VRG, to be so lacking in credibility that they were impelled to compose a lengthy December 19, 2019 memo detailing the many preposterous flaws with her many fantastical tales.
— They said they were “unable to corroborate” the central claim of VRG’s purported victimization, which had also given rise to the very essence of Epstein mythology as we now know it: that she was “lent out” for sexual services to prominent men, such as Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.
— They noted that VRG’s accounts of her own sexual abuse were “internally inconsistent,” and not just over long periods of time, but within a single interview they conducted with her on September 9, 2019.
— They noted that VRG admitted to repeatedly lying about basic facts, destroying evidence, and telling falsehoods to the media.
— They noted that VRG schemed with a tabloid trash journalist, Sharon Churcher of the Daily Mail, to generate “big headlines” by accusing lots of prominent people of heinous child-sex crimes, in hopes that this would entice prospective publishers to buy their forthcoming “memoir” for big bucks.
— They noted that VRG claimed the FBI told her they were aware of “40 other Epstein victims,” but the FBI never told her any such thing.
— They noted that VRG had falsely claimed the FBI told her “Epstein had cameras watching her at all times,” and repeated this tantalizing claim to the media, but the FBI never told her any such thing. And indeed, they were “not aware of any such cameras.”
— They noted that VRG became “particularly combative” when asked for specific details of her claims, at one point cursing at the Assistant US Attorneys when they requested more information about the specific instances in which Ghislaine Maxwell had purportedly “directed her to have sex with another person.” An infuriated VRG eventually proclaimed: “She’s the one who brought me to be trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein in the fucking first place!” Which, conspicuously, did not answer the prosecutors’ question. Oh what I wouldn’t give for the video footage of VRG frothing at a stone-faced Maurene Comey.
— They noted that VRG “began using drugs so heavily that Epstein said he did not want her around anymore.” VRG has long acknowledged consuming large quantities of memory-impairing drugs during her tenure as a supposed sex slave, but I’m not aware of the drug-taking habit ever being cited as the proximate cause of her departure from Epstein. (But I could be misremembering; I’ve consumed such a lunatic amount of this material, I might as well be on some mind-melting substance.) Either way, VRG’s excess drug consumption is not supposed to be mentioned in polite company, because we’re not to “shame” her, even though VRG’s self-told memories of sexual misfortune many years after the fact are what unfortunately form the basis of the currently-existing Epstein mythology.
— They noted that VRG made a “continuous stream” of “sensationalized” claims in her public media appearances.
— They noted that VRG falsely claimed the FBI had told her there was a “credible” death threat against her, and repeated this in public several times, including in front of the Manhattan federal courthouse after the infamous August 27, 2019 struggle-session hearing I’ve previously written about. The memo says the FBI actually told her the exact opposite: that there were no credible threats against her! WTF!
Tracey has been kind enough to attach a copy of the memo, for those interested.
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.
More options
Context Copy link