Дэйв, в политике не бывает друзей или врагов. В политике есть взаимные интересы, которые совпадают, либо не совпадают, в той или иной степени. В общем то Вэнс прямо об этом и сказал в одном из своих интервью.
The Epstein files
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Transwhatnow
One of those notes we keep because we will somehow regret not:
It's not so much a surprise that tescreality shows up in the Epstein files; with this kind of concentration of wealth and power, it is inevitable that someone would wander through the scene, somewhere.
One of those notes we keep because we will somehow regret not:
Sam Altman's name pops up in an email between Jeffrey Epstein and Joscha Bach. They're discussing Nectome, “a startup promising an end-of-life service to map every neuron of your brain and wake up your digital self in the cloud,”
...and Altman apparently signed up.
...and Altman apparently signed up.
It's not so much a surprise that tescreality shows up in the Epstein files; with this kind of concentration of wealth and power, it is inevitable that someone would wander through the scene, somewhere.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
No one fools death. Your brain is not you. Just part of the machine you use to exist in this reality.
A Necessary Part of the Discussion
Togolese human rights activist Farida Bemba Nabourema↱ explains:
Also: Maté eventually rolled.
Togolese human rights activist Farida Bemba Nabourema↱ explains:
Noam Chomsky was not just any public intellectual. He literally incarnated a thinker who built his entire moral authority on opposing oligarchy, corporate power, and the ways wealth captures the state. That is why this is not a trivial lapse in judgment.
Epstein was not an ambiguous figure. When Chomsky continued his friendship with him, he was already a convicted sex offender who had solicited a minor. Beyond, Epstein was a living example of the very structure Chomsky spent decades denouncing. Wealth shielding and elites protecting their own.
You cannot denounce oligarchic power in theory while extending empathy, legitimacy, and personal friendship to one of its most grotesque embodiments. That is a grave moral contradiction.
Epstein was not an ambiguous figure. When Chomsky continued his friendship with him, he was already a convicted sex offender who had solicited a minor. Beyond, Epstein was a living example of the very structure Chomsky spent decades denouncing. Wealth shielding and elites protecting their own.
You cannot denounce oligarchic power in theory while extending empathy, legitimacy, and personal friendship to one of its most grotesque embodiments. That is a grave moral contradiction.
Also: Maté eventually rolled.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Agree. The question is what purpose Chomsky had in friending a foe. It sounds to me like he started with good intentions and then got sucked in by charm (possibly that Bundy-esque form called "superficial charm").
Agree on "legitimacy and personal friendship," but I believe empathy is still possible even towards horrible human beings. I don't know enough of Chomsky's public comments on Epstein to gauge how much he was extending him legitimacy, but that would seem the greatest misjudgement if he was.
You really do come up with some incredibly stupid statements.
Here's a valuable point of view (source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/jeffrey-epstein-good-character-reference/106307992). A few extracts from the article, which talks about the men who were willing to "overlook" Epstein's child abuse. Added emphasis is mine.
Before a convicted child sex offender is sentenced in New South Wales, they have the opportunity to mitigate their sentence by securing a credible person to tell the court that they are of "good character".
It has always been a moment of searing and ultimately damaging cognitive dissonance for all who heard these testimonies from supporting grown-ups and wondered: but hasn't the fact that you now know this friend of yours is a murderer, or an abuser, or a child sex offender changed your mind?
....
Looking into its foul, open mouth we saw men we knew, or feared, or trusted, or loathed or admired writhing in the agony of being found out at their most weak, venal and immoral. Men who had chosen to look beyond the horror of a sex trafficking conviction in order to wet their beak in the fountain of Epstein's money or privilege. Men who had decided he was a "good enough bloke" to justify the qualms they surely (surely?) repressed so they could curry favour with the man and his lifestyle.
....
Let's be clear about the kind of people we are discussing: Larry Summers, former US treasury secretary and Harvard president; tech billionaire Peter Thiel; Virgin founder, Richard Branson; political strategist, Steve Bannon; self-help guru, Deepak Chopra, who bantered in an email with Epstein that "god is a fiction; sweet girls are real". There is the greatest grifter of her time, Sarah Ferguson, the UK politician Peter Mandelson and, of course, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, about whom there are daily so many new Epstein horrors that they cannot be listed here.
....
Men, and some women, who were palling around with this convicted felon in planes and hot tubs and on islands and at breakfasts and dinners who appeared not to care that Epstein harmed children and that in 2005 had been identified by federal officials as the abuser of at least 36 girls.
Why did none of this change their mind?
Since the files have been released we really still only know a small amount about the millions of documents available, but we do know for certain that there is a separate "Epstein" class in the world of distinguished, powerful and wealthy people who are immune from prosecution and who live in an echelon of protection that migrants being chased through icy US streets by masked thugs could only imagine. The worst of the consequences, for one of the key figures, seems to be moving from 30 bedrooms at the Royal Lodge to five on the Sandringham Estate.
....
The files comprehensively shatter the fundamental attribution error of believing that if you make your way to the top, to the most elevated status, that you are a good and deserving person. Our own power biases attribute "good bloke" status automatically to judges, doctors, self-help gurus, priests… well, once upon a time… because we assume that if you are entrusted with these important positions then you must be fundamentally "good".
But it is an old story: men raised in patriarchy with power, access and no consequences.
Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ripped the veil from this fallacy, when it showed that paedophiles sought positions of status and power precisely because of the appearance of unimpeachable integrity it afforded them, and therefore unquestioned access to children. But what on earth do you say about the adults who remained supporters of them, friends with them even after they learned what they did?
.... Days after the Epstein file release, the friends of this monster now declare their regret at maintaining connection with him. Where was that moral code before?
Have we the timeline whereby the friends of Epstein can be broken down into those who must have been aware of his crimes and still associated with him in dubious ways and others who associated with him before this was common knowledge?
Do all the people that are listed above in linked article fall into the former category and are there others that do also?
Apart from patriarchy is any legal system vulnerable to abuse from wealthy citizens in that money grants power to good and bad alike and so that bad people will inevitably use that power in accordance with their character?
Can we say that it is not so much their fault for gaming the system as our collective guilt in accepting it?
(even if there is no long term or definitive solution to the problem-even communism quickly established its own privileged class)
Can we look at societies where corruption is less and take lessons from them in how to self govern ?
Edit : from this link
Corruption Rank by Country
The Corruption Perceptions Index Rank (CPI Ranking) is published annually by Transparency International, a non-governmental organisation. A country or territory's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories in the index.
tradingeconomics.com
it looks like Scandinavia as a whole have the cleanest hands.I wonder what were the criteria for the listing?
Воруют там, где система это позволяет делать. Где больше чиновников, где у чиновников больше власти - там и будет процветать коррупция. Чем меньше посредников между государством и бизнесом, тем меньше воровство. Чиновники являются такой прокладкой. Хотя формально они представляют государство, но пока у них есть право запрещать или разрешать что-либо, они будут использовать своё служебное положение для своего личного обогащения.Have we the timeline whereby the friends of Epstein can be broken down into those who must have been aware of his crimes and still associated with him in dubious ways and others who associated with him before this was common knowledge?
Do all the people that are listed above in linked article fall into the former category and are there others that do also?
Apart from patriarchy is any legal system vulnerable to abuse from wealthy citizens in that money grants power to good and bad alike and so that bad people will inevitably use that power in accordance with their character?
Can we say that it is not so much their fault for gaming the system as our collective guilt in accepting it?
(even if there is no long term or definitive solution to the problem-even communism quickly established its own privileged class)
Can we look at societies where corruption is less and take lessons from them in how to self govern ?
Edit : from this link
Corruption Rank by Country
The Corruption Perceptions Index Rank (CPI Ranking) is published annually by Transparency International, a non-governmental organisation. A country or territory's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories in the index.
it looks like Scandinavia as a whole have the cleanest hands.I wonder what were the criteria for the listing?
И ещё - как это не покажется странным, коррупцию иногда использует сама власть, для того, чтобы удобнее управлять "замазанными" в коррупции чиновниками, и другими представителями государственных структур. Воровитый судья примет "нужное" решение, если на него есть компромат, воровитый депутат проголосует за "нужный" закон, и т.п.
Last edited:
Not feeling inclined at the moment to provide links for the following claims and neither am I gonna bother with all that "alleged" nonsense--there's a point at which affording the "benefit of the doubt" seems more an insult to the victims than anything, just given the sheer abundance of what is "alleged" by countless parties and the remarkable consistency of such as regards serial behaviors and practices.
But setting aside all the Mossad crap, the Russia crap, and all the other distractions amongst "the Files", by all indications we in the US are governed by a cabal (the most adequate descriptor, really) of child rapists and traffickers of countless women and girls--some as young as 9 years of age. Not to mention torture and quite possibly murder, of both victims and perpetrators deemed likely to grass. Trump, many within his cabinet, and men (and a few women) with tremendous wealth, power, privilege, and very close ties to this administration. Pizzagate, Q, et al were essentially projection, right down to most all of the particulars, excepting perhaps the drinking of human blood bits.
Trump alone appears 38 thousand times in the heavily redacted fraction of the Epstein Files to which we plebes are privy, and Jamie Raskin has stated that the terms "Trump" and "Donald" appear over a million times in the unredacted files, which, again, constitute only a fraction of the material. Moreover, the feds failed to redact countless mentions of names of the victims, as well as images--including nude images, some of underage girls.
Then there's the collaborators, and those providing cover, and those not doing (or having done) jack-shit (and this includes Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, et al), and the 70-odd million seemingly unfazed by the horror and depravity and cruelty of it all.
And so much for the myth of "cancel culture".
I am literally losing sleep over this shit, and I am even more constantly agitated than usual--which is saying a lot. Also, kinda goes without saying, I'm rather more depressed than usual and this is compounded by guilt over not really doing jack-shit myself, nor being--or being in any way close to--a victim in all of this. How exactly does one "move on" or "move forward" from this?
But setting aside all the Mossad crap, the Russia crap, and all the other distractions amongst "the Files", by all indications we in the US are governed by a cabal (the most adequate descriptor, really) of child rapists and traffickers of countless women and girls--some as young as 9 years of age. Not to mention torture and quite possibly murder, of both victims and perpetrators deemed likely to grass. Trump, many within his cabinet, and men (and a few women) with tremendous wealth, power, privilege, and very close ties to this administration. Pizzagate, Q, et al were essentially projection, right down to most all of the particulars, excepting perhaps the drinking of human blood bits.
Trump alone appears 38 thousand times in the heavily redacted fraction of the Epstein Files to which we plebes are privy, and Jamie Raskin has stated that the terms "Trump" and "Donald" appear over a million times in the unredacted files, which, again, constitute only a fraction of the material. Moreover, the feds failed to redact countless mentions of names of the victims, as well as images--including nude images, some of underage girls.
Then there's the collaborators, and those providing cover, and those not doing (or having done) jack-shit (and this includes Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, et al), and the 70-odd million seemingly unfazed by the horror and depravity and cruelty of it all.
And so much for the myth of "cancel culture".
I am literally losing sleep over this shit, and I am even more constantly agitated than usual--which is saying a lot. Also, kinda goes without saying, I'm rather more depressed than usual and this is compounded by guilt over not really doing jack-shit myself, nor being--or being in any way close to--a victim in all of this. How exactly does one "move on" or "move forward" from this?
Speaking for myself, I am not surprised to learn that a large group of men apparently feel entitled to women and girls as a kind of "prize" or "reward" for being rich and wonderful (according to their own oversized egos). The patriarchy is very much alive and kicking along as usual.
What especially dismays me is that so many people who are not in that "privileged" group of "entitled" men are willing to not only turn a blind eye to the harms caused to the victims, but to actively work on behalf of the perpetrators of the abuse to make accountability "go away".
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What is this? Can you provide a brief summary of what we might view if we follow the link?
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
Done, the lazy way.
Yeah, the phenomenon itself is nothing new. The exceedingly rich and powerful have always engaged in some of the worst and most monstrous behaviors and considered themselves wholly immune from any and all consequence, even social reprobation. With this particular instance though, the degree of concentration at this level is somewhat unique--note that there's very few celebrities and Hollywood types in the Epstein files, it's mostly politicians and the wealthiest amongst business and tech moguls. IOW the people who wield the most power over the rest of us.
But those outside this circle, those who actively facilitate or simply ignore... Pam Bondi's testimony the other day was quite extraordinary. Her allegiance and willingness to perjure herself only puts herself at risk, and for what? The entire testimony was a travesty but this particular moment, wherein Bondi refuses to apologize to the many Epstein victims, some of whom were present, whose names, phone numbers, addresses, and images--including some nude images--were not redacted in the releases, pretty much encapsulates the entirety of Bondi's testimony:
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Now known as "Trump-Epstein Files".
- Jimmy Kimmel
- Jimmy Kimmel
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
This link is worth a share. Its more searchable than the official FBI website. Someone made a website, if you want to go through a lot of the released info on Epstein check out https://jmail.world/
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What exactly is this?
It looks like Gmail, but what are we looking at? Are these actual emails from the named senders to the named recipients, or is this an elaborate simulation? How do know what is real and what is not? How do we know what is included and what is conveniently not? Or i this really just a sort of listserv of a bunch of other people talking about the Trump-Epstein Files?
This needs context.
[UPDATE] I found some:
Jmail is a browser-based archive of the public emails that were released by the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). The website is stylized in a Gmail-based interface, with the goal of making EFTA releases easier to access and browse.
You are logged in as Jeffrey Epstein, jeevacation@gmail.com. These are real emails released by Congress. Explore by name, contribute to the starred list, search, or visit a random page.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
