domain:eigenrobot.substack.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7m ago
Kirk opposed the civil rights act. Motteposters may not consider that a far-right political view, but normies do.
If you just drop that little factoid and leave it at that, this might be true. When you explain why he opposes it it will probablynturn out that even a good chunk of liberals agree with him.
It's always then same story with these slogans.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
8m ago
Churchill was technically fired for plagiarism and for falsely claiming to be a Native American. The fact that affirmative action fraudsters like Churchill and Warren only get caught and fired if they become politically controversial is an indictment of the system, but his firing was clearly legally justified.
NullHypothesis
12m ago
I think part of the reason Kirk wasn't brought up here in the Motte despite his enormous popularity is that he's not known for having insightful, original thought, Instead he was good at getting ideas out to young people. His positions are mostly moderate republican and ultimately he's a political activist, albeit an effective one. So unless he's part of a culture war event of substance, there isn't much reason to talk about him. The only thing of interest I can think of that might have been worth discussing prior to his assassination would be his role in founding Turning Point USA and the role he played in helping get Trump elected.
I think normie leftists don't know him, but the one's that engage with leftist influencers probably did know him a little. I think you are right that most of them are regurgitating talking points, considering just how many of those talking points break down when you examine them in context.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
19m ago
Sure, he used money from the banks to pay people -- but I'm sure lots of criminals withdraw money from a Chase ATM in the commission of a crime, which hasn't (till recently) been laid on the bank.
There's a big difference between the ordinary JPM customer who has an account with $5,000 in it and who barely interacts with anyone at the bank, and a high net worth client who has private bankers and gets personal attention from higher ups.
Saying those are the same is like equating purchasing Nike shoes with being sponsored by Nike. Or wearing a Cartier watch with being provided a custom Cartier watch at reduced price for promotional reasons. If the Charlie Kirk assassin wears a suit from Polo, I don't know that anyone will notice.
JPM didn't just let Epstein open a checking account at a branch without anyone being aware of it. They extensively courted, discussed, facilitated Epstein's business at the bank.
I also don't think that we've ever gotten a really good explanation for where Epstein's money came from. @2rafa et al put it as "Epstein got an extraordinary deal with Les Wexner and got all his money from there and he didn't have any other clients and case closed." But no one ever puts Epstein in a class of similar people. To my knowledge, there is no class of similar people, there are no other cases that are remotely similar. No other billionaire gave all his money to one rando with no real qualifications and made that guy a billionaire for no apparent reason. No other billionaire signed power of attorney over to some guy. Despite a plethora of gay billionaires, no one ever signed everything over to his boy toy. So "Epstein got all his money from Les Wexner" isn't really a conversation ender to me, it's the start of another more interesting mystery.
NullHypothesis
25m ago
That is interesting.
I think the lesson is if you want to argue with flat earthers with the intent to win the argument and fail to do so, you should accept that you don't actually know why the earth is round, then spend some time learning some reasons for why the earth is round so that in the future you are better equipped to win that argument. Or, if you have no interest and time then don't bother. Flat earth discussion has very little productivity value.
If you are unable to argue your point or dismantle the opponent's, just accept you lost the debate. It doesn't mean you're wrong, or the opponent is right. Or, just listen with an open mind. If the flat earther has a solid argument, maybe they're right. Otherwise, you'll spot the contradiction or error. If you can't then maybe you aren't understanding their argument, so just admit you need to think about it more and move on.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
29m ago
Kirk opposed the civil rights act. Motteposters may not consider that a far-right political view, but normies do.
He was also all-in on Trump's attempt to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election. If you think (as Orwell did and you should, although most people don't) that the main danger of the far right is the same as the main danger of the far left - the threat to democracy and the rule of law - then that makes Kirk (and Trump, and most of MAGA) far-right in the way that matters. That is what I mean by Jan 6th being the ultimate scissor.
PS. If an American publisher were typesetting this post those hyphens would be rendered as em-dashes. (British style is to render parenthetic dashes as en-dashes between spaces, which is why I was so confused by the first few months of the em-dash discourse). Still not a bot.
Soteriologian
32m ago
Men can survive just fine without women; women cannot survive without men.
No, the dynamics I’m talking about manifest at timescales larger than a generation. Men cannot reproduce without women, nor vice versa, so they are both parts of a single whole. I don’t think one can reasonably call a gender relationship “parasitic” in any biological sense. I’m not using “parasite” as a slur, but referring to a particular dynamic of how life operates.
Now, one can ask “ok but if we just imagine reproduction could be done without the need of one of the sexes, now what?” Basically, either synthetic sperm or synthetic wombs. And yeah, here women don’t come out looking very well. Andrea Dworkin (blackpilled feminist addicted to doomposting before we even had the internet) explicitly posited that right-wing women are terrified of male homosexuality because it represents a potential world without women at all—with reproductive tech, gays could obsolete women entirely and live in a paradise without them. (Yes, this was her actual thesis lol)
I’m not sure I entirely buy her thesis—if nothing else, homosexual desire only exists as a bug in heterosexual desire, so once you’ve severed reproduction and sex with technology, there’s no selection pressure to even be horny in the first place, so I predict it would vanish entirely within a few short generations.
Whether Jesus predicted this in his answer to the Sadducees I leave as an exercise to the reader.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
37m ago
Do go on!
The word Cravat comes from Croat, and the neck scarf comes from a scarf worn by regiments of Croatian light-cavalry mercenaries during the Thirty Years War, who were famously fierce fighters.
In 1660 a regiment of Croats arrived in France — a part of their singular costume excited the greatest admiration, and was immediately and generally imitated; this was a tour de cou, made (for the private soldiers) of common lace, and of muslin or silk for the officers; the ends were arranged en rosette, or ornamented with a button or tuft, which hung gracefully on the breast. This new arrangement, which confined the throat but very slightly, was at first termed a Croat, since corrupted to Cravat. The Cravats of the officers and people of rank were extremely fine, and the ends were embroidered or trimmed with broad lace; those for the lower classes were subsequently made of cloth or cotton, or at the best of black taffeta, plaited: Which was tied round the neck by two small strings.
-- Le Blanc, H., Esq. (1828). The art of tying the cravat: Demonstrated in sixteen lessons
The Croats were famously fierce fighters, mothers all the way to the early years of the 20th century would supposedly frighten their children with stories about the Croatians depredations at the sack of Magdeburg. Croat regiments for a time became a generic term for light cavalry, comparable to hussars, and many adopted the Croatian costume.
So an elite, famous, fierce military unit shows up in Paris. The fashionable men of Paris immediately cop their style, to imitate the masculine devil-may-care mystique of the mercenary. Soon the Cravat was de rigeur for formal dress. Charles II brought it back from exile on the continent, and it became part of English fashion. From there the cravat evolved into the bow tie and straight tie and I guess the bolo tie of today, and the once military cravat became the faggy ascot that a costume designer puts on a character to inform us that the character is some unspeakable mix of wealthy and homosexual.
I will say, a lightweight scarf is really a pretty functional piece of dress for a life outdoors. I'll occasionally wear one despite the aria di frociaggine if I'm on a long hike or a bike ride. Keeps the sun off your neck, keeps the chill off without too much weight while being easily adjusted. The Croats had it right.
lurker
43m ago
I know from personal experience that leftists also use the phrase and like the song as well. Again, not particularly convincing.
NullHypothesis
44m ago
That is an intelligent observation. Really clever. I don't agree with being intentionally deceptive just to make your argument stronger. That's manipulation, not truth seeking.
I suppose in the context of the debate, Sean ought to have been better prepared with actual stats of his own for the particular claim. It let Destiny set the frame.
For what it's worth, I think Destiny was right for the wrong reason. The numbers he's quoting are different from the numbers Sean was thinking of, but the numbers Sean probably was thinking of to support the idea that federal funding on defense is higher to the degree that it would tip the scale to make his argument was also wrong. So Destiny uses invalid stats to prove his position, which means it doesn't actually disprove Sean's point, but he was right by default because Sean was wrong to begin with.
I personally think that Epstein's finances were above board and he simply wasn't as rich as he claimed to be (his lifestyle was consistent with the amount of money he could have made scummily but legally by charging Wexner 2-and-20 without providing alpha). But if I was the Feds I would have been going over his finances with a fine-tooth comb.
Indeed, and that also explains why the banks (in particular JPM) were so keen to maintain his business, because he did nothing with the money except hand it to them to ride the booming 90s equity market, so everybody got their cut. The private wealth division at JPM was making huge fees from Wexner (the kind of billionaire who would usually have a more shrewd family office) for pretty much nothing.
In Maxwell’s recent testimony they asked her about the house (legally transferred for almost nothing) and at last there was an answer there, too, namely that it was in lieu of “fees”. Epstein seduced Wexner, “invested” his money (unlike the Madoffs of the world for the kind of boring, safe returns best suited to that task) and then charged hedge fund fees. Why didn’t Wexner measure his returns against the market? Hard to say, maybe he was in too deep, didn’t care, assumed Jeffrey was a genius, liked the attention and friendship, was a little in love, or was just under the thumb of an overbearing and domineering mother (which is the historical record) and didn’t really think of it much.
But either way, a combination of a couple hundred million in fees from Wexner, reinvesting his own money, some shrewd early-90s real estate purchases in Manhattan (a few apartment buildings, as I recall) and the $170m from Leon Black (Epstein’s only other “client” even though he never managed his money and the one case where I suspect blackmail is possibly central) and his fortune is easily explained even with some blunders along the way.
Turning point USA was founded in 2012, so 13 years ago. He was 18 then so he pretty much went all in.
From Wikipedia:
More options
Context Copy link