Conspiracy Theories

[Cunt]

The judgement type in that case paved the way for another tricky case, or so goes the theory.

Summary: just, fair and transparent.

[Brian Peacock]

You don't really need to invent secret cabals to explain this kind of stuff, the power politics of patriarchy and capitalism are more than enough. What you might want to think about is the kind of people who've primed you to assume that anyone who calls out fake, fabricated, and far-fetched claims automatically outs themselves as a supporter of the imagined secret cabals - whoever they're supposed to be this week. You also might want to ponder on the fact that just because others are not reflexively and constantly broadcasting their #OUTRAGE at the likes of Epstein and his clients doesn't mean they're secret admirers of Epstein or supporters of those who've acted very shadily in that matter.

No, but if you KNOW that Gates is his pal. And you know that his divorcing wife cited Gates' relationship with the convicted sex-pest was part of why she left, do you think it's cool that media still treats him as just fine?

I mean, he never said nasty things about a tragedy, so he can't be 'Alex Jonesed', but how is it that Jones is persona non grata for saying a few awful things, yet Gates isn't?

It's a large contradiction. Like respecting the Clintons or their Foundation, after knowing how often Bill met with him...or seems to be.

Indeed, or Trump or Clarence Thomas, or any other so-called 'friend' of Epstien. But the rich and powerful haven't had to close ranks on this, which is to say I don't think there are moustache-twirling villains secretly meeting in oak-panelled rooms to decide what's going to happen. It's just how the self-entitled 'masters of the universe' naturally act and view themselves - born to rule, above everyone else and therefore subject to different norms and standards, and even different laws. They view things in terms of 'people like us' and the rest, and the rest only exist to serve them and their elite interests.

Contrary to what the Right would have us believe, 'The Elite' isn't a political distinction that identifies lefties as elites and the righties as men of the people, but a Class distinction that sits above party politics.

[pErvinalia]

Don't be nuanced, Brian. His brain can't compute that.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't be nuanced, Brian. His brain can't compute that.

I don't think its a cognitive challenge for him. More one that challenges the right-wing marketing he's been exposed to, which, in validating the feels of many people, has systematically primed them to express their frustrations and anger at the world, but only by looking to the Left for the blame and to explain them. This is how we've ended up with fact-checkers or people who challenge unsupported moral claims being declared supporters of government censorship and/or apologists for Epstein etc, or soft-neoliberals like Obama or Biden being painted as radical far-left extremists.

The Left (broadly) offers political alternatives that prioritise the interests of the many over the interests of the few, where the Right (broadly) offers a politics that prioritises the interests of the few over those of the many and then pushes narratives which presuppose that the reason life is hard and frustrating for the many is because of the Left. This topsy-turvy framing makes things appear internally consistent to the people who've been primed to accept it, so that those standing up against racism become 'the real racists', those calling for greater tolerance and inclusion become 'the real intolerant exclusionists', and those prioritising the interests of the many become 'the real elitists'.

[rasetsu]

I would say because the news and government are so often lying, it is easy to dismiss anything. Like pretending that wealthy and powerful people were NOT involved in child sex trafficking.

For instance, the child sex trafficking ring that was busted was CLEARLY serving wealthy and powerful clients. Why do you suppose their identities are still fiercely protected by the US government, and everyone else involved?

Probably for the same reason that others suspected of crimes aren't named until and unless a charging document is filed.

'Probably'? Is that some logical assessment based on blind trust of the justice system?

No, it's pointing out that the government protecting the identity of persons of interest is not in need of any conspiracy theory to explain it as it is standard law enforcement practice. So this crap you keep repeating about the government protecting wealthy sex offenders is crap because they aren't protecting them any more than they would any other person who is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

Are you saying that government or the media claimed that certain persons weren't involved in a child sex trafficking ring?

If you had read my post, you would see that I did not say that.

I did read your post and in it you claimed that the media pretended that wealthy and powerful people were not involved in Epstein's sex offenses. At the very least it would seem that to pretend that something was true, one would have to do something to suggest that the pretended thing is true. So you tell me, what are you saying the media did that suggests that wealthy and powerful people were not involved in child sex trafficking? From what I saw, even though there was little public evidence to support specific allegations against specific people, the fact that wealthy and powerful people did associate with Epstein was pointed out by the media and is the very opposite of suggesting that they weren't involved. So you tell me, in what way did the media 'pretend' they weren't involved?

That doesn't sound like something either of them would have done. Can you point to an example of either declaring such a thing?

No, because you made up a ridiculous conclusion about something I wrote, and of course they don't declare people innocent.

It wasn't a ridiculous conclusion based upon your words. Rather it seemed exactly what you were implying. If that wasn't what you were implying then you need to clarify exactly what you were implying the media were guilty of doing. Otherwise your claim of any pretense by them is bullshit.

They busted both for sex trafficking children. So they must have known that they trafficked children.

To who? Well, they didn't want to say.

Do you think it's acceptable? Considering who their 'frequent fliers' were? Or just a little suspicious?

As already pointed out, there are perfectly mundane reasons for this. Anything more is baseless speculation.

The media, and 'news people' circled wagons and, where we found out about it, just hid the story. I think it's extra funny that Disney/ABC was the one caught doing it.

But you are asking who was declared innocent. Well, the media has no problem going after someone's character, digging up their past and ruining them. Except in this case.

Weird, no?

No, not particularly. I see no good reason why one should expect the media to have behaved differently.

What is this incident involving Disney/ABC that you're referencing here?

[rasetsu]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

[Joe]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

The only thing I saw supported Jack Smith's charge that Trump directed the rioters, but we already knew that from the January 6th Committee report.

[Joe]

Don't be nuanced, Brian. His brain can't compute that.

I don't think its a cognitive challenge for him. More one that challenges the right-wing marketing he's been exposed to, which, in validating the feels of many people, has systematically primed them to express their frustrations and anger at the world, but only by looking to the Left for the blame and to explain them. This is how we've ended up with fact-checkers or people who challenge unsupported moral claims being declared supporters of government censorship and/or apologists for Epstein etc, or soft-neoliberals like Obama or Biden being painted as radical far-left extremists.

The Left (broadly) offers political alternatives that prioritise the interests of the many over the interests of the few, where the Right (broadly) offers a politics that prioritises the interests of the few over those of the many and then pushes narratives which presuppose that the reason life is hard and frustrating for the many is because of the Left. This topsy-turvy framing makes things appear internally consistent to the people who've been primed to accept it, so that those standing up against racism become 'the real racists', those calling for greater tolerance and inclusion become 'the real intolerant exclusionists', and those prioritising the interests of the many become 'the real elitists'.

It's hard to know the mind of another, especially when you only encounter them in the medium of print. I have encountered the attitude you describe and had illuminating, if not always productive, conversations with people who hold it.

I don't see that happening here, and I think it's because he doesn't communicate in good faith. I don't need to elaborate, do I?

[Cunt]

It's a large contradiction. Like respecting the Clintons or their Foundation, after knowing how often Bill met with him...or seems to be.

Indeed, or Trump or Clarence Thomas, or any other so-called 'friend' of Epstien. But the rich and powerful haven't had to close ranks on this, which is to say I don't think there are moustache-twirling villains secretly meeting in oak-panelled rooms to decide what's going to happen. It's just how the self-entitled 'masters of the universe' naturally act and view themselves - born to rule, above everyone else and therefore subject to different norms and standards, and even different laws. They view things in terms of 'people like us' and the rest, and the rest only exist to serve them and their elite interests.

Contrary to what the Right would have us believe, 'The Elite' isn't a political distinction that identifies lefties as elites and the righties as men of the people, but a Class distinction that sits above party politics.

So you remember Trump was mentioned, but not that he kicked Epstein out of his club for being creepy around young girls?

Surprising, since it's come up here...ah well

Russel Brand gets cancelled for being a drug and sex-addicted celebrity. None of the Epstein associates get it.

It's a good thing they don't want to 'get Trump', or they would surely have gone after HIM for this.

No, not particularly. I see no good reason why one should expect the media to have behaved differently.

What is this incident involving Disney/ABC that you're referencing here?

Glad you admitted that you didn't know. It's a Project Veritas expose, which included video.

An ABC (owned by Disney, or vice-versa) news program had a bit of video leak, where a reporter was complaining that she had the Epstein story years ago, and ABC spiked it to preserve their access to celebrities and royals.

A couple other 'news agencies' fired people right away, for being the suspected leaker. Competitors or colluders, I'll let you decide.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

If I wanted to know, I would check out both sides of the political aisle, to see what both were claiming, and what video evidence they clipped to support their story. As a starting point, I mean.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

The only thing I saw supported Jack Smith's charge that Trump directed the rioters, but we already knew that from the January 6th Committee report.

Oh, I KNOW. I've seen other stuff, but it's good to know that you haven't. Helps me understand your position better. No need to read this though, I did get the comment you made about faith.

[Joe]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

The only thing I saw supported Jack Smith's charge that Trump directed the rioters, but we already knew that from the January 6th Committee report.

Oh, I KNOW. I've seen other stuff, but it's good to know that you haven't. Helps me understand your position better. No need to read this though, I did get the comment you made about faith.

So you claim to know something, but don't share it. And yet you complain when I say you don't communicate in good faith.

Tell you what big talker, if you've watched the recordings, you know where they are and can provide the name of the mp4 file where you saw the "other stuff." Let's have it!

Deflection in 3...2..1...

[Cunt]

You can't believe me, so I'll just treat you like someone who thinks I'm discussing 'in bad faith'.

I guess that means pretty much ignoring you, while trying to be polite.

To be helpful, I'll point out that it wasn't at all hard for me to find dissident viewpoints on it. No special skills required.

To think that there is only one side of such a physically large, chaotic story is a HILARIOUSLY transparent conspiracy theory.

[Joe]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, what do we know now that the January 6th footage has been released that we didn't know before. What surprising and unexpected truth has come to light because of the release of the footage?

The only thing I saw supported Jack Smith's charge that Trump directed the rioters, but we already knew that from the January 6th Committee report.

Oh, I KNOW. I've seen other stuff, but it's good to know that you haven't. Helps me understand your position better. No need to read this though, I did get the comment you made about faith.

So you claim to know something, but don't share it. And yet you complain when I say you don't communicate in good faith.

Tell you what big talker, if you've watched the recordings, you know where they are and can provide the name of the mp4 file where you saw the "other stuff." Let's have it!

Deflection in 3...2..1...

You can't believe me, so I'll just treat you like someone who thinks I'm discussing 'in bad faith'.

I guess that means pretty much ignoring you, while trying to be polite.

To be helpful, I'll point out that it wasn't at all hard for me to find dissident viewpoints on it. No special skills required.

To think that there is only one side of such a physically large, chaotic story is a HILARIOUSLY transparent conspiracy theory.

So you can't point to a recording and deflect once more. SSDD.

[Cunt]

Yes, of course.

Sorry your research has denied you access to any. Must make it tough to know what's going on.

[Joe]

Yes, of course.

Sorry your research has denied you access to any. Must make it tough to know what's going on.

Can you find 0102USCS01SenateWingDoornearS139_2021-01-06_14h11min04s377ms.mp4?

I did. Can you spot the future Congressional candidate?

[Cunt]

Cancel culture is a conspiracy theory. (or a Media Matters / ADL / etc. strategy)

Elon responds to advertisers who pulled their ads, and kind of implies blackmail.
https://t.me/georgenews/7611

I wonder if that's going to get him a slander or libel problem. Not to mention the word you aren't supposed to say on Television...