domain:firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
22m ago
So far the only theory I've heard that makes sense is that important US interests are presently depending on the kompromat and none of this can see the light of day for reasons Trump wasn't privy to when campaigning or when he was president.
I'm leaning towards "any relevant evidence was destroyed by someone years ago". If there was damning evidence about Trump, I'm 99.999% certain it would have been "leaked". And if there still existed any damning evidence, I don't think Team Trump has the unified discipline to not have any actual leaks.
TitaniumButterfly
6m ago
I don't know what he thinks because I've never seen him try to articulate it instead of making snippy comments at people who are trying to understand. At this point I don't really care what he thinks and frankly I interpret any apparent effort on his part as likely to be part of a trolling operation.
jake
52m ago
I think a point you stake a claim on doesn't necessarily withstand scrutiny.
Epstein wasn't a pathological liar. He was a sociopath who lied when it suited him, that's not the same as compulsive lying. For your examples, he was lying to ingratiate himself with higher social circles. He also maintained his fortune, and as you said, he left it in the hands of professionals. That's proof that he had an honest assessment of himself, not one overblown as we would expect from other sorts of behavioral pathologies. It might be easy for a "boy toy" to get himself in a good position, staying there isn't easy, and you've described a competent man.
You then stake on the idea of intelligence agencies not working with liars and conmen, that's exactly what they do. Treachery, betrayal, is considered the gravest sin. The lowest circle of the Inferno, the ice is full of traitors. What has the US done, time and again? Turned spies against their country of origin. If the US government can find a reason to trust someone who commits the gravest sin below treachery to God, no doubt with as little slack as they're given, they can find a reason to trust a guy who lied at parties and fumbled around early in his career. It's an idea from how the world should be, or an idea from how the world operates in fiction about spies. None of what you describe of his background is specifically disqualifying for his use as an asset. The question is the link, whether his connections make sense, or the impact, whether blackmail makes sense.
Israel, as a state, knows history isn't over, and they act like it. They're operating from a timeline looking to the end of the century and the next. Having the US as an enduring ally is an existential requirement, just as is keeping every country around them unstable until they have enough of a technological edge to assert permanent regional supremacy. They have reason to run a perpetual blackmail machine, including targeted those who appear to be on their side. Appearing like it isn't enough when the game is whether your country keeps existing. It could be, as @Quantumfreakonomics wonders, that for some it was a carrot, and others a stick. It could be that the stick becomes a carrot. Once they've got you on tape fucking one 17 year old, what's ten more? And on that note, you think the sorts of guys hearing about Sex Monster Island aren't aware of the power of the jews in America? They'd notice if they never saw any other jew. I'm reaching here, but you've also reached in looking for benign explanations. Like with Epstein's death, you start with the frame of suicide, so you make the explanation for why. I would ask, given what we know about his life and how often men like him skirt justice, is it probable that rather than torching literally any VIP he could draw from the list of flights, he instead just killed himself? It's not.
There is also maxwellhill. Ghislaine Maxwell had a prominent hand in the general psy-opping of the giant psy-op that is Reddit. She was, maybe still is, an intelligence asset. What was Epstein, then?
ABigGuy4U
56m ago
@2rafa @SecureSignals @Goodguy It was a joint Mossad/CIA project. That’s why he was able to get the the earlier charges dropped on the basis of being intelligence. The way he got rich was by being a CIA money launderer. Trump can’t reveal the list because the American people would react badly if they found out that electoral politics is basically fake and they’ve been living in a dictatorship of the CIA for the past 60 years.
Goodguy
31m ago
Then, once in power, if it turns out there are reasons to not release that information, just do a 180 with no explanation and brazen out the short term consequences because they don’t matter in the long run.
He's not even doing this, though. A few days ago, he got really testy with a reporter who asked him about Epstein, and earlier today he went online and wrote a whole paragraph rant about Epstein totally unprompted. He could just lay low and let the whole thing blow over, but for some reason he keeps getting openly emotional about it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7m ago
This is also dragging in another one of my hobbyhorses: "whaaat's the haaarm in a few druuuugs, bitta fun, should be legaaaal". Well, maybe legal drugs in this instance would indeed have kept the man from getting killed by the paranoid, possibly high, 'friend' who was claiming he owed a huge drug debt.
But the problem is the 'friend'. A junkie who was doing some minor dealing, probably dipping into his own supply, probably being leaned on by his suppliers (who are not nice people who think drugs are wonderful and everyone should have free access to them so we'll supply them) for the missing money, getting paranoid and trying in turn to lean on his customers with claims that they owed more money than they did. This was not somebody doing 'few druuuugs, bitta fuuuuun'. Drugs and guys like this don't mix well (neither does alcohol, I'll freely admit that). The drugs legalisers seem to push the idea that drugs are just harmless party fun and if legal nobody would ever have any bad outcomes.
This is just not the right case to be making this claim. If drugs were legal, this guy would probably not be a drug dealer (because pharma companies have standards) and wouldn't be being leaned on by his suppliers to such an extent (because pharma companies that threaten to kill people stop being legal in a hurry).
The cases that actually do still arise from legal drugs are "addict (i.e. end-user) runs out of money and becomes a career criminal to get his fix" and "stimulant-induced mania/psychosis". These are cases which are unambiguously "this is not due to prohibition; this is just due to drugs being available at all". This is why I'm against legalising meth, for instance, despite being generally in favour of legalisation, because it's fucking notorious for doing the latter (the former is somewhat more tractable in other ways). But this case is not actually one of them, and you do your position a disservice by trying to cram it into that mould.
You're ignoring his memoirs and remarks made long after the alleged torture session, which itself was reported in his memoir. If he were a compelled witness, this is a very strange way to go about it.
In revisionist Carlo Mattogno's work on Hoess's confessions the torture of Hoess was attested to by people involved in the interrogation:
“Mr Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heidi [sic] in Schleswig Holstein. ‘They brought him to us when he refused to co-operate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/46 and was put in a small cell in the barracks,’ recalls Mr Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr Jones to join Hoss [sic] in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. ‘We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,’ said Mr Jones. When Hoss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.”
The "confession" consists of interrogation minutes signed by Hoess on March 14, 1946. You are correct that Hoess reported on his own torture, but you left out the fact that Hoess claimed to not even know what was in the interrogation protocol he signed that constituted his confession.
“I was arrested on 11 March 1946 (at 11 pm). My phial of poison had been broken two days before. When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first, I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier. At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the protocol, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had gotten into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
This was his first "confession", and he was tortured into signing it even though he did not even know what was in it.
You can say that later iterations of the confessions, in which the fact pattern of those confessions so happened to evolve with the knowledge of his various interrogators (Mattogno documents this very well), were not extracted from torture but that's not saying much at all. It's built on a foundation of sand, there are many reasons why someone who was tortured into a false confession would maintain a confession later without actually being tortured.
Hoess was captured because his wife was threatened with having her and her children turned over to the Russians:
No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke’s tone was deliberately lowkey and conversational.
He began mildly: ‘I understand your husband came to see you as recently as last night.’
Frau Hoess merely replied: ‘I haven’t seen him since he absconded months ago.’
Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: ‘You know that isn’t true.’ Then all at once his manner his changed and he was shouting: ‘If you don’t tell us we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing-squad. Your son will go to Siberia.’
It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.
A Nuremberg witness described a conversation he had with Hoess during the proceedings, from Mattogno's work:
At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister was a witness for the defense and was about to be released soon. In the car carrying him, he sat in the backseat together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit; in particular, he remembered Höss’s following outburst (see Document 3):
“On the things he is accused of, he told me: ‘Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.’”
Von Schirmeister wrote that Höss thought it was his duty to help his “comrades” by testifying during the Nuremberg trial that only “very few knew about certain events,” but added that the future of his wife and children “was the only thing that worried him.” Although Höss was “treated well” in Nuremberg, meaning that he was no longer subjected to physical abuse, the threat that his wife and children would be handed over to the Soviets, which the British may have arranged already, “proved more than enough.”
And this is on top of all of the known falsities and contradictions laden in these "confessions." But as I've already explained, the biggest problem of all is the lack of corroboration of these claims in the body of documentary or physical evidence.
If you think about it, the fact the excavation pulled out tiles that matched eyewitness accounts is a little too convenient, right?
This is funny, the tiles did not match witness accounts and the manufacturers logo would have been installed facing the structure, not installed with the logo facing outwards. But this is a good time to consider how far the mainstream has to reach to substantiate their outrageous claims. They claim 800,000 people were killed at the location they "investigate" but instead of excavating mass graves they find a clay tile and claim they have proven everything, while demonstrating their eagerness to overfit on the data by falsely interpreting a manufacturer's logo.
Revisionists claim that there were real sanitary facilities constructed in Treblinka II. This is supported by budget documents which explicitly have a line item for sanitation facilities to be constructed in TII. So a clay tile is also consistent with the Revisionist theory that this camp featured real sanitation facilities that were falsely claimed to be homicidal gas chambers.
Also, using ashes for fertilizer, dumping them in rivers, or any number of reported ways to hide them would seemingly explain this problem away quite easily.
Ah yes, using ashes to fertilize cabbage was one of the claims. It sounds diabolical doesn't it? But human ash is toxic to plant life due to the high amount of sodium in human cremains. They have various claims for where the ashes were dumped, what they don't have is any physical evidence the remains were dumped where claimed.
At Treblinka II it's claimed the ashes were all buried on site. But they've never been excavated. Colls found a clay tile though! It gets more absurd the more you think about it. One funny anecdote from Colls scientific excavation is that she found a fossilized shark teeth from when Poland was a seabed millions of years ago! But if the cremated remains of 900,000 people were on that site, and each victim had an average of say 28 teeth, there would be over 25 million human teeth buried in this small area where she found fossilized shark teeth.
Instead what Colls did was excavate a small number of bones in a marked Christian gravesite south of Treblinka I (i.e. not where 900,000 Jews are claimed to be buried) and claimed to have found a mass grave.
No wonder people believe the Holocaust narrative so easily, right?
People believe the Holocaust narrative because of the media transmitted in popular culture and what they are told in school. The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory. Not gas chamber extermination. This is laid out in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, which was a 90-minute meeting of mid-level officials. It's the mainstream that claims the minutes of the meeting were forged to camouflage the undocumented discussion of some grand extermination conspiracy. The Revisionists claim the minutes of the Wannsee Conference are representative of the policy, it's the mainstream that disputes their authenticity because it contradicts their narrative of the German policy.
One might imagine we have wanted to compensate for that guilt a bit as time went on.
Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
18m ago
I often see right-wingers online virtue signalling about women with tattoos. They'll see a photo of a hot woman who has tattoos and start posting stuff like "eww disgusting" or "why did she ruin her body with that". I am convinced that 99% of these guys would fuck the hot woman without any hesitation if they had a chance, tattoos or not. It's just a big virtue signalling LARP to pretend to other guys that they care more about tattoos than they actually do.
"Ugly" doesn't mean "total deal-breaker". I've been in relationships when the woman got a thing for tats. I didn't care for them, but I wasn't going to end a relationship over it. The associated decline in decision-making quality... not that was something to walk away over.
I took my daughter to a concert this weekend, and there were a ton of women with tattoos. The daughter has been expressing some interest, and I got to point out to how crappy almost all of them looked, even using the "like a toddler slapped stickers all over you" line. We had some good laughs on the way home about some of the... bold fashion choices on display.
TheLoser
54m ago
A simpler explanation; transwomen are often formerly (still?) autistic men, who have difficulties with regulating emotions, especially emotions that arise from what they feel as personal attacks. This would explain the overly violent comics and memes; it's emotional dysregulation.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
24m ago
I know at least one doctor with full-sleeves, they were perfectly normal and worked in emergency medicine (which does have a bit of a reputation for wildcards).
I've got a single tattoo, that's usually covered up. It's really not a big deal.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
24m ago
The "Grok wants to rape Will Stancil" thing is still ongoing. Will even went on the local news about it. The memes and jokes are just spectacular. This is the funniest fucking thing that's happened on the internet since Trump put all the libtards in crystals.
But the thing that pushed me to share the unhinged, surrealist joy of the Dankest Timeline was this absolute bunker-buster of a post from Big Yud himself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
42m ago
Or saying he got an axe and chopped a tree apart in lieu of his interlocutor's carcass. I actually did that once (and yes, I mean both the chopping and the telling him); I think the only reason I didn't get banned was that the troll who provoked the response was the forum owner and wanted to troll me more in the future.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
59m ago
That's what makes this 180 so conspicuous. It makes no sense: if you know you're compromised, you wouldn't have campaigned on lifting the veil, if you know you're not, what could possibly convince you to hesitate at the last second?
I think it is at least moderately possible that we live in such a degraded political and media environment, that Donald Trump can rise to the Presidency by just continuously doing the thing that seems like the best idea at the time. So, compromised or not, run on nailing Epstein johns to the wall, because that incrementally improves your electoral chances. Then, once in power, if it turns out there are reasons to not release that information, just do a 180 with no explanation and brazen out the short term consequences because they don’t matter in the long run.
Donald Trump walks the Shortest Path.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Alex believes that the first world is better than the third world. And actually the racists who want to deport all the immigrants from the third world are somehow actually the ones making the first world into the third world? Meanwhile unlimited immigration from the third world is no big deal?
More options
Context Copy link