This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last week, a child-predator sting operation in Las Vegas run by the FBI snagged 8 people. One of those people was Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, who is the head of the Technological Defense Division at the Israel National Cyber Directorate. This is a significant official under Netanyahu. He was booked into the Henderson Detention Center and charged with luring a child with a computer for a sex act, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison, but then the next day he was back in Israel:
Netyanhu's office claimed Alexandrovich was never arrested, but the arrest charges are a matter of record, which only brings us another stark example of the nation of Israel's unbelievable capacity for lying.
So why was Alexandrovich let go while the 7 others caught in the sting remained in prison and have already appeared in court? According to Shaun King's sources:
Inexplicably, Shaun King's tweets about this story were deleted after receiving tens of millions of views in engagement on X.
An X account run by the U.S. State Department actually released a brief statement today after the outcry on X, confirming that Alexandrovich was not on a diplomatic visa but claiming that:
Hmmm, ok. So he was the only one released from jail while the other 7 caught in the same operation remained imprisoned and have already had court hearings, and his passport was not revoked, he was allowed to fly to Israel the next day... yet the U.S. government did not intervene. Well someone intervened, who did? Who made the decision and why?
The interim US Attorney for the District of Nevada is a radical, Israeli-born Jewish Zionist Sigal Chattah. Did she make the call and why? Of course we all know why.
So where does that leave us? The story has escaped any iota of investigation from the American mainstream press. The U.S State Department provides no explanation for how this happened.
It's another data point in support of my own prior beliefs on the Epstein case in contrast to @2rafa's position on the case. I think @2rafa's case is reasoned well enough and does provide an alternate explanation for the suspicious constellation of unanswered questions. But it really does come down to my own prior beliefs, my confidence that if Epstein were involved with Israeli intelligence the US government would do anything to stop that information from becoming public. That, in my view, provides a better explanation for the unanswered questions, the massive pivots by the Trump administration on the investigation, the suspicious caginess, than 2rafa's explanation for the constellation of evidence. If 2rafa were right, I think the feds would to a damn good job proving it to the entire world.
This is all very familiar. Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who oversaw the 2008 plea deal that significantly reduced Epstein's charges, reportedly told President Trump's transition team that Epstein "belonged to intelligence" and to "leave it alone". 2rafa brushes this off as hearsay, and attributes Epstein's sweetheart deal to human error by the prosecutors and perhaps being leaned on by connected Wall Street friends. The claims of Epstein being said to belong to itnelligence? That's all hearsay (which it is to be fair). But this isn't a criminal court, I do consider repeated claims, even by Epstein himself, of being related to intelligence to be significant evidence even if it wouldn't be allowed in a criminal court.
Those exact same arguments can and will be used for this case too: there's no nefarious explanation, the prosecutors just dropped the ball and forgot to take his passport away and let him fly to Israel unlike the 7 others arrested in the same sting... any claims that U.S. government intervened are false, they say, and any claims that there was pressure by the U.S government are merely hearsay so far (and they are).
Like I said, this story does not surprise me in the least, it conforms to my prior beliefs regarding the priorities of the US government and the extent to which its institutions are compromised by Jewish-Israeli influence. However, my bold prediction is that Alexandrovich will be extradited because I do not believe those in power to be so incompetent as to not throw Alexandrovich to the wolves for the sake of retaining the diminishing shreds of credibility they have left.
There is currently a big push by Nick Fuentes against a rising JD Vance on the accusation that the MAGA movement has been compromised and appropriated by Israeli influence. Alexandrovich escaping justice under the Trump/Vance administration would be too symbolic of a proof for the exact criticisms Fuentes has of the MAGA movement. The story is going to give him credibility, animate and grow his audience, I don't see why Trump/Vance would allow this to happen just to avoid prosecuting one guy who as far as I can tell seems disposable.
The alleged Acosta quote isn't merely hearsay. If an individual who heard the quote went on the record and said he personally heard Acosta say that, then it would be hearsay, and would be entitled to a certain amount of weight, less than if Acosta went on the record himself, but still a decent amount, regardless of admissibility in court. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an unnamed "Senior Administration official" who told a journalist that Acosta said that, and we don't even know if the official in question even heard the quote themself or is merely repeating a rumor. That is, at minimum, double hearsay with an anonymous intermediary. It's the kind of thing that is only to be believed by someone who is already motivated to believe it.
Go back and read my writeup from a couple weeks ago on what actually happened in DOJ during the initial Epstein investigation, and explain to me how him being an intelligence asset or whatever fits in. At what point was Acosta told to "leave it alone"? How does a guilty plea involving jail time and sex offender registration equate to leaving it alone? Why were Epstein's attorneys so dissatisfied with the deal that they spent nearly a year trying to get out of it after it was signed? Why didn't senior DOJ officials in Washington side with Epstein when he referred the matter for departmental review? If Epstein had dirt and was pissed at the government for prosecuting him, why didn't he use it during the near decade between his release and rearrest, during which time he was the subject of numerous lawsuits?
There's an extensive record of the initial Epstein deal and if no one inserting wild conspiracy theories about Epstein getting off easy because he was a Mossad agent has done the basic work of familiarizing themself with that record. Instead they start from the premise that Epstein was involved in intelligence and work backward, ignoring anything that doesn't support their theory. Not doing so is like writing about European economic development in the second half of the 20th century without knowing about WWII.
I really appreciated your write up the other week, found it convincing, and reference the contents in arguments with conspiracy minded individuals.
One comment I got was "fine, if Acosta didn't say that why does he refuse to comment under oath."
Any chance you have something I can toss out in response to that?
I'm not sure what refusals they're referring to, since he answered Epstein questions during his confirmation hearings and again during a House Oversight Committee hearing after it became big news, though I'm not sure if the latter worked the intelligence angle (the former was only five minutes and was unremarkable). He did explicitly tell OPR that he had no information about Epstein being an intelligence asset, though I'm not sure if this interview was under oath. He isn't scheduled to testify in front of the current House committee, but I can't see any information indicating any refusal or reluctance, only that he isn't on the witness list.
I imagined the answer was something like this, as you clearly demonstrated the mainstream media coverage of this is exceptionally poor and I can see one of the primary vendors creating the impression impacting my family member with limited associated reality.
Sigh.
Thank you!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link