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 -
Joe Rogan continues to provide some of the most interesting conversations in the world. Yes he seems to have gone down some conspiracy rabbit holes, but he gets interesting people in a seat and has a long ass conversation with them.
Recently he had Vance. A few things popped to me.
-You'll never convince me Vance isn't part of the SSC/Rationalist diaspora, when he goes off of politics he just oozes it.
-For the UFO fans he says he'll keep looking into it but he doesn't have a lot of hope.
-He did a good job defending some of his more questionable personal and political actions (the demon comment, election issues, the current Iran tactics). Less good with some other things like quashing the filibuster.
-Vance states he is an Epstein conspiracy theorist (but not in the popular way), in the interview he focuses more on the financial aspects of whatever Epstein got up to and focuses away from the pedophile stuff, hard to tell if he really believes nothing is there on that end.
-Joe Rogan's haters continue to be annoying and non-credible, he pushes Vance more than I remember seeing him come at most of the political guests I've watched (but is accused of being glazing).
I've been fortunate to be around for or involved in private conversations with "notable" people, it's fascinating. At the same time I'm not a notable person, so even when that's happened I have to just accept the circumstances and hang back. We live in a time where JRE and other things like "In Good Company" (and even smaller things like the brief podcast Enes Y did) give unprecedented access to the thoughts and plans of the profoundly powerful. Previously you had to sit for a public speech or pay for a dinner, now we can really get a bit of a slice of what Vance is about.
What a wonder.
This isn't anything recent by the way. He has believed, among other things, the flat earth, the US faked the moon landing, and 9/11 (or at least tower seven) as an inside job. One of his oldest friends is Alex Jones. He doesn't go down some conspiracy rabbit holes. He's been a conspiracy theorist since almost the beginning
Given that the astronauts were sitting on top of three thousand tons of rocket fuel, where does he think the were headed? (And if NASA had faked the moon landing, why haven't they faked a Mars landing by now?)
I dabble in moon landing conspiracy theories and I wonder about that. Could you shoot a mostly empty rocket over the horizon and claim it was a moon launch? Obviously that wouldn’t get you the radar track, but could that get you the visual?
This will fool muggle masses, but the masses do not matter too much.
There is already conspiracy theory that all rocket launches are fake, and space travel
a/does not exist, because space is fake, you ain't getting through the firmament
b/happens on flying saucers powered by Nazi developed vril antigravity technology, thing so advanced it makes rockets look like dugout canoes
The problem with fake moon landing is that USSR, China and other powers would have to go with this charade. If moon landings are fake, whole cold war was fake, and this means totally fake, with both sides controlled by the same illuminati cabal. Few moon landing revisionists are willing to go so far.
Otherwise, US would for brief propaganda point give their rivals loaded gun pointed on their head.
Imagine USSR or China (or some other great power of the future) landing for real on the alleged Apollo spot, and announcing to the world that there is nothing out there - no flag, no moon buggy, no footprints, no bags of astronaut poo.
The Soviets spent the next half decade getting discount American grain shipments that kept their economy from falling apart. And the Chinese had just managed to get the Americans on board as a partner against Soviet expansionism. I don’t think either one would want to make a meal of any suspicious radar tracks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You got a citation for any of this?
Flat Earth and Moon landing conspiracies are MANY orders of magnitude more questionable.
Here's Joe debating against Phil Plait on the moon landing. Two guesses on which side he's on.
Flat earth was actually a false memory. Joe Rogan himself is not a flat earther. He discussed it with Eddie Bravo, who actually is a flat earther, and Alex Jones, who he's been friends with for over 20 years.
Here's Joe Rogan talking with Rosie O'Donnel about 9/11.
Joe Rogan talking with Alex Jones in 2003. You can literally hear how young Joe Rogan is in his voice.
Joe Rogan with Bob Lazar, one of the most famous UFO/Alien conspiracy theorists, and Jeremy Corbell, who made a documentary on Bob. Joe notes within the first minute about how much he's followed Lazar over the years. Worth noting that Lazar has been in the UFO/Aliens conspiracy circles since the 90s.
There are literally thousands of clips of Joe discussing his fascination with, love of, and belief in some conspiracy theories. His earliest podcast episodes had many instances of him bringing people on to have conversations, and when conspiracy theories came up, he'd waterboard the guest with knowledge of them. In fact, that was a part of his early appeal. He is deep, deep, in the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe one is asking about Vance and the other is answering about Rogan.
Rogan and Jones are definitely friends, Rogan has been a conspiracy theorist since almost the beginning. Rogan is the He, not Vance.
Yes, but 9/11 involved some weird stuff is relatively mainstream, flat earth is not (and to my recollection Joe argued against flat earth stuff).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Phil Mogg is 78 and has heart problems that already put the kibosh on their last tour. It sucks that he said the band was pretty much done during an election year, but I don't think there's anything the administration can do about it.
Vance could go to his doctor and politely ask him for some young blood for his lonely heart.
More options
Context Copy link
BTW your recent post on songwriters took something I thought I knew a reasonable amount about and taught me I didn't know shit.
Thank you for that (earnestly).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Vance wants to actively investigate the Epstein case, doesn't he have the political power to do just that?
Apparently Vance said: "[Epstein] clearly had connections to the upper, the highest levels of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence".
Does the Vice President of the United States really not have the power to discover and communicate concrete specifics about something like this?
If you watch the whole interview, Vance gives a pretty good answer to this (although more so in the context of UFOs).
Basically his argument was that, as much as he might want to investigate this, he's only one human and his time is limited. He has to deal with nonstop crisis like the latest developments in the Iran war. It's not like there's some file marked "the real top secret truth" that he can read. Investigating means interviewing tons and tons of different people, who mostly only know a small part of it themselves, and reading though a million pages of mostly boring routine court documents. On top of which, a lot of physical evidence was either destroyed or never collected during the early parts of the investigation, so they're stuck with mostly just a lot of vague reports.
For what it's worth, he did explicitly deny that Epstein was working directly for any intelligence agency. He didn't give any real proof of that, but he did say he had looked into it.
More options
Context Copy link
It's like the metaphor about what happens when you go witch-hunting. If you find some screaming wailing maiden and burn her to death, she's probably not a witch or her power level is pretty low.
If however you're investigating a Grand Elder of the High Coven, the investigation hits a total dead end, the relevant people find that nothing more can be done after saying they themselves personally are clearly exonerated, records are lost or must be redacted or the cameras just failed... well either there's an awful lot of bad luck or an awful lot of magic going on.
More options
Context Copy link
I hate to be gauche, but he probably enjoys having a non-dead wife.
More options
Context Copy link
For a long time it was political suicide to go against the Israel lobby. I don’t think that’s the case anymore, but maybe Vance still feels that it is.
I will never understand Joo-posters' obsession with the USS Liberty.
I was recently listening to an interview with one of the survivors who was there.
After the ship was hit by a torpedo plane (I think), the ship sunk. Dozens of Americans abandoned ship. The Israeli planes then strifed the Americans in the water with machine gun fire from their aircraft - presumably to kill everyone and keep the story contained.
I always wondered, do people think this is a fake story? Or is it just not a big deal?
Or they believed they were firing on enemy personnel from an enemy vessel they had just sunk. Not exactly very sporting or within the norms of modern western nations, but not that crazy.
Mistaken identity/friendly fire incidents happen all the time, the US has a somewhat infamous reputation for blue on blue incidents with allied nations.
Not that crazy? Shooting at shipwrecked sailors is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention; it's literally a war crime!
From the Second Geneva Convention, Chapter II, Article 12:
You know what they say, it's only a war crime if you lose the war.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole concept of "honor" has been so lost that even those who profess to defend it are constantly in the act of denigrating it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it happened 60 years ago, agonize over it now makes as much sense now as being still really angry about Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The USS Liberty is the case in point example for zionist influence in American politics. If zionist influence had vained or stopped being a relevant factor then yes, bringing it up constantly would be a little off. But zionist influence has only grown.
To that extent JIDF posters can only pretend to not understand the context or attempt to denigrate those who do.
More options
Context Copy link
Yet on the other hand people especially on the US right still regularly invoke the memory of the 1979 Iranian hostage taking of US diplomats. How important an event seems to remember greatly depends on how well it meshes with the narrative you are weaving.
(Also, isn't the consensus nowadays that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a US intelligence fabrication, almost up there with Sender Gleiwitz?)
It also depends on whether the country involved knew what they were doing. The Israelis thought that they had located a vessel belonging to the Egyptian military, with whom they were in a state of active warfare. The Iranians knew that they were targeting diplomatic personnel.
It furthermore depends on whether they apologised for their actions. The Israeli government, upon realising their mistake, apologised to the United States and subsequently paid a total of, adjusting for inflation, over $80 million. Has Iran ever acknowledged wrongdoing in the matter?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well the linked write-up explains that Israel killed 34 American soldiers, the president and his advisors and most of the surviving crewmen all believed it was on purpose, and Israel then conspired with American Jews in government to threaten the president not to talk about it, while conspiring with Jewish journalists to quash the story, all this done through their consulate. Decades later they balked at ever paying restitution to the families, even with American pressure. To top it off, the event has a symbolically resonant name: the Attack on USS Liberty. And this happened in 1967, which was not the height of the lobby’s power.
I'm not familiar with this incident in any great detail, but what would the Israelis possibly hope to gain from a deliberate attack on a US warship, in the middle of a major war?
If Israeli influence was so strong over the US that they could effectively puppet the government and its armed forces, why even strike the ship at all?
Why not just use all that shadowy influence to covertly achieve whatever goal they were trying to achieve instead?
I'm struggling to come up with an explanation for Israel being malicious rather than simply mistaken that doesn't sound like;
According to our then-president, it was to prevent the ship from spying. It’s possible the Liberty had obtained comms about the slaughter of surrendering Egyptian soldiers.
But it could have obtained other valuable information:
—
They do not have much influence within the meritocratic military that they largely do not serve in. They have power in politics and media, where money buys influence.
According to the crew, this was impossible. The flag was clearly visible, and they even had a passing Israeli pilot wave to them overhead.
The crew aren't in a position to make that judgement, I've read far too many accounts of seemingly very dumb friendly fire incidents, particularly involving airstrikes, to believe that it is impossible to screw up this badly. During WW2, a little over 20 years before this incident, Allied planes mixed up what country they were attacking and bombed Switzerland something like 70 times. War is a confusing mess and shit does indeed happen.
Yes, if I was planning to blow up an allied nations spy ship as part of a cover-up, I would make sure to have my planes fly low and slow so that everyone on board can see whose air force the plane belongs to, for good measure I'd also transmit to them and ask in plain, unambiguous language to tell me that they have positively identified the American ship that we are going to bomb in order to cover up our nefarious wrongdoings. After all, even if my foolproof plan of sinking the ship and doing a few strafing runs on the survivors in the water fails, the famously hostile-to-life mediterranean sea will take care of the rest.
There is absolutely nothing that the USS Liberty could have recorded that is more dangerous to the state of Israel, or those in power in Israel, than deliberately bombing a US warship. This is the cold war, the US does not care about the rights and wrongs of the war Israel is currently fighting, who started it or who is massacring who. The Soviets are backing the Arabs, so the US is going to back the Israelis to try and counter-balance the strategically significant middle east.
If you can do this, you aren't afraid of a grainy 1960s recording of intercepted radio messages from a war zone. You just aren't.
You are disagreeing with the NSA director (“It couldn't be anything else but deliberate”), the CIA board of inquiry ("no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing"), the 18th chief of Naval Operations from 1967 to 1970 and 7th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974, and the President before he was threatened. I imagine all of these people have heard accounts of dumb air strikes, but they didn’t file this under “shit happens”. In WWII the allies flew more than one million sorties over Germany, so 70 dropping in Switzerland is a pretty low amount.
If you have decided to give orders to blow up an American spy ship (and America was not quite allied with Israel at the time), you would not be the grunts tasked with identifying ships over international waters. Those are totally different men.
I don’t think there’s any way to know that. And it depends if they knew how much power they had in the American Jewish community. Evidently they had enough power to threaten the President’s career and reputation and alter news stories on the incident while stifling the influence of the main intelligence branches. Their question is “can I get away with this?” or “can I plausibly deny this?”
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The stance he describes in the rest of the interview is basically that something fishy may have been going on but at this point literally decades later (and Vance seems to assume after the first series of legal events everything dried up) no further evidence is around.
We do know various intelligence agencies have done a good job at throwing out documents and "forgetting" about things which complicate matters.
Vance also argues that even for things he wants to look into he doesn't necessarily have time to go knock on doors and be like "hey 20 years ago did you know this Epstein guy?" He also uses this excuse on the UFO thing.
I suspect if pressed a bit more Vance would argue that there wasn't an organized conspiracy, just that Epstein knew people in intelligence and leveraged those relationships. This would be certainly be consistent with the way he knew a lot of people, and if you believe the court stuff is above board it would explain things drying up after being acquittances but discovering the malfeasance. If you think the court stuff isn't above board it would explain him using relationships to get out of trouble but then being burned afterwards. Both of those require a lot less conspiracy stuff (in contrast with an organized operation).
Who knows what Vance actually believes, it's entirely possible this is just him politicking for various reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This has always been about my view on it. Been aware of Epstein since around 2007 (grew up in Palm Beach County, where he got prosecuted).
My nuanced view is that the pedo-ish stuff is bad, very bad. But it was never the end goal or the raison d'etre of the conspiracy. It created leverage, and the leverage was used for... WHAT? Financial shenanigans was certainly part of it.
Hence why I'm a bit annoyed (not surprised) that everyone wants to string the folks on the epstein list of specifically for sex crimes, rather than possibly more broadly impactful activities that would be very interesting to uncover.
Agreed, Epstein was also involved in financial laundering and weapon smuggling with dealers such as Douglas Leese and Adnan Khashoggi. Human trafficking was only one of the arms of the whole criminal enterprise.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean do we have any actual evidence of third party sex crimes? All the actual evidence seems to involve Epstein's personal consumption, the rest is inferred.
Like we've talked about before their's enough rumoring about Bill Gates and a few others to suggest something but there isn't really a lot of evidence.
I do know there are some alleged victims but as we know with Kavanaugh that's not reliable unless someone skeptical actually thinks they are a victim.
We have evidence. Nothing I've seen would be quite sufficient to convict anyone of note.
The one that raises my suspicion is the so-called Lolita Express. If you were going to either pressure a VIP into a compromising act or reassure them there was no chance of getting caught in said act, 30,000 feet up on a large Boeing aircraft is pretty ideal.
My apologies if I have missed any information to the contrary but what that is evidence of is the guy having "sex parties*" not of arranging for child sex or underage sex.
Which makes sense.
The vast majority of the value of such a service comes from providing something safe and legal**, working the margins of legality for blackmail tremendously increases risk without much actual proposed gain (considering the guy clearly was doing well with money and connections and pissing people off is unhelpful in that even if its lucrative).
*Where sex party means social activity where women who will want to have sex with you will be, without you needing to go out in public to make it happen or for money to exchange hands. This is a thing that clearly happens in finance and entertainment and likely has a well known process for those who are in the know.
**Safe and legal has value. I'm sure Robert Kraft is not alone, but he only got nailed because he made the mistake of going somewhere that made the government uncomfortable for unrelated reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like the Epstein political/business links are a way more interesting thread to pull than quibbling over whether he hired 16, 17 or 18 year old girls to act as Escorts at parties. Anybody trying to claim Epstein was sacrificing 4 year olds to Satan is clearly on some galaxy-brain nonsense and is going to float into the air sharting themselves if a civilized discussion emerges. Who was paying for Epstein, how many other whoremonger types have his sort of network and how'd he manage to ascend so explosively strike me as actual questions worth getting answers to.
Epstein is the same as Pizzagate. It is the natural continuation of Franklin, or Bohemian Grove. There are sex trafficking networks that operate all over the world to bind public figures through shared perversion and blackmail. You can see the tail, or the trunk, or the foot all by itself, every once in a while. If you pay attention, you noticed it's all an elephant.
Franklin was boy prostitutes in Franklin Oklahoma connected to high level politicians, including visits to the HW Bush white house. Hunter Thompson filmed a snuff film at Bohemian Grove.
All of this stuff has been around for those with eyes to see for years.
I have no doubt that Epstein did sex trafficking, likely of people a bit under the legal age of consent, and I'm fine with him going to prison. I just think that it was way more 'paying a 16 year old escort' than it was 'kidnapping 4 year olds for snuff films'. Say what you want about Pizzagate but the allegations there were more about genuine children and kidnapping.
More options
Context Copy link
No, look -- I have friends in the Bohemian Club and the Family (which split off) and have spent some time on campus. There are many interesting things I could tell you, but nothing like that. They're just summer camps for extremely successful men who want to goof off with each other without dealing with the public. They're more interested in forming cover bands and putting on silly stage plays than conspiring about anything. I mean, I'm sure they do plenty of that elsewhere, but not at the Club. That's just not what it's for. And they don't even seem to get any slack on regulations. For example, a little creek wandering through the woods got designated a 'navigable waterway' (absurd) and so they can't rebuild a cabin that slid down into it.
The food is very nice though and the best part about it is that it's an extremely high-trust environment. You can just walk up to anybody and he's gonna be very interesting and capable of a great conversation and happy to talk to you because if you're there you're pre-filtered for talent, success, and urbanity. Politics vary much more widely than you'd think, though due to the average age most people are fairly boomerish and mainstream. From my perspective they mostly come off as naive neolibs and have the same sensibilities (re: race and sex) you'd find anywhere.
Anyway the instinct to mistrust the elites is good and right, but they go to the Club to re-live being teenagers at boy scout camp and have a good time, not to discuss work or, uh, kill people? Yeah I'm pretty sure that never happened. It's all much, much more normal, and even boring, than I expect you to believe.
ETA: Something that might help illustrate the vibe is that if a member has his cell phone out in public he's kicked out of the club for two years. If he brings a guest and the guest has his phone out in public the member is still kicked out for two years! This has nothing to do with secrecy. It's about creating a pleasant, relaxing in-person social setting away from the world. Scrolling or taking work calls there would be totally contrary to the point of the place and they're serious about maintaining the vibe.
It's the faggiest damn thing I've ever seen
-Richard Nixon
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with this thesis is there’s a baseline rate of sexual crimes, and despite all conspiritard claims to the contrary, I do not actually see evidence that the rate for powerful people exceeds the baseline rate—especially given the obvious misincentive to accuse powerful people of things in hopes to score media views or even extort settlement money.
Sex crimes are likely bimodal. A lot at the low IQ/limited options side and a lot for the very rich. The rich have power and run casting couches and the poor just do weird stuff.
But the middle class people fear getting in trouble so far less degeneracy.
I think it's a baseline rate for every the middle class version of sex crimes is creepy coaches and priests.
Every few years we would hear of either a priest or coach getting caught doing something pervy. When I was in highschool it was the JV girls soccer coach, one of the girls found a camera in the locker room, they traced it back to him.
My sister had a weird and uncomfortable encounter with the physical therapist for the high school. But it was a few years after we were gone that he got arrested for a statutory assault.
I would not be surprised if the news about sex crimes is bi modal. The middle class likes to look down on the lower class animals beneath them, and also know the sordid details of the rich and famous.
Maybe. I might prefer the term sexual deviancy to sex crimes for a bimodal distribution of sexual deviancy. For both the poor and rich sexual deviancy is low costs. For the poor they have little to lose. For the rich the costs is money they have plenty of. For the rich it might be 300 prostitutes a year (technically illegal but not prosecuted) or sugar babies or whatever Charlie Sheen was doing. The middle class can neither risks jail (they lose families) or just buy a lot of sex. But for the poor and rich sexual deviancy is rather cheap. Though saying this also means there are a lot of female semi-prostitutes in the middle class.
Actually have a friend who’s got a trust fund, dad sent him to sex-rehab, and is probably up to around 300-500 a year semi or full prostitutes. So this definitely exists in the upper class. I found it funny when Aella tried to claim most of her clients were either virgins or married guys with wives who no longer want sex. I bet like alcohol and every other market who clientele is from high volume users and possibly semi addicts.
I feel like the looseness of borders around 'sex work' also make it tricky to collate exactly what counts.
Aella clearly counts, but like if hypothetically some rich guy has a fuckbuddy that he knows is like 100% to put out to him/his friends if he invites her to a Yacht Party and pays for her proverbial ticket, is that not sexwork on some level?
I’m not even sure if Aella and her hoe friends count. I think they’ve all made like date me papers and want to marry an autistic tech nerd. So creating a website with a buy me now button for 4k an hour just filters for the exact social skills they already want to sleep with in a way an autistic nerd can filter thru.
It kind of depends on how many men they are sleeping with and whether it’s more sex more other stuff.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The casting couch isn't a rich people thing, it's a theatre thing. Theatre has been associated with promiscuous behaviour for millennia.
In general, I see no evidence that the increased capacity of the wealthy to buy access to sex results in their doing so any more than their capacity to buy unlimited Doritos and Mountain Dew results in their doing so.
Sorry but your analogy doesn’t work. Rich people don’t drink Mountain Dew because it’s an inferior product. Doritos are kind of good but it’s limited by other reasons (getting fat not money). And rich people do spend more money on food than poor people.
Both of those products have economic limiting factors that are not monetary - health. The pleasure of fucking 19 year old girls on birth control doesn’t have negative health consequences. But can be acquired with money.
More options
Context Copy link
I think athletes are the exception? Probably because most wealthy need to become wealthy or inherit the expectations of the wealthy so they make better decisions.
Athletes are constantly caught in prostitute scandals, rape scandals, even ordering underage women via text message.
Athletes have a lot more in common with lottery winners than typical high earners, with social clout on top of it
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem is with the organization.
It is possible that there is a small town where a group of wicked people meet up at a local business and abuse their children together, all covered up by the local head of police.
It's a different matter when that same structure is reproduced at an inter-continental scale, with private islands, officials with enough access to allow border crossing, organizations whose overt purpose provide plausible deniability ie modeling agencies, fashion companies, NGOs...
Then we can expect child abuse not to be a matter of opportunity but of sourcing.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't call me conspiratard.
How do you think underage callboys got into the white house? Why were they there? Who brought them, and why?
Or do you simply deny that it ever happened?
We see glimpses, from time to time, but if you're waiting for a grand reveal you'll never get it.
To what does this refer? Google isn’t helping.
Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
Craig Spence
A quick skim does not indicate any "underage callboys" in the white house in these sources.
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
More options
Context Copy link
It feels like the entire internet has been taken over by the sorts of people who used to make videos on Illuminati conspiracy theories.
The internet is made of words (spoken or verbal) and thus belongs to the people who produce words. Schizoposters produce a lot of words.
Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People
It was the case as long as internet was open to general public, but the age of AI can finally put it to end. Machine can schizopost 24/7/365 without need to eat and sleep and easily outschizo the craziest crazies out there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Very much agree, if you actual read the primary source documents (and some of our users have and passed the knowledge along) it really doesn't look like what the conspiracy theories say.
He even has a good excuse for all the connections and relationships. However - some shady financial business happening at least some of the time would make a ton of sense in a way the sex stuff never did.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link