Thread by @soychicka

@page88 I do think it's time to dissect the route that many of these philosophists traveled en route to their platforms... to see how their paths crossed with well-funded promoters of specific narratives and ideas - i.e. agents, 'philanthropists' (John Brockman, Jeffrey Epstein.)

@page88 Because as of late, I've been questioning one thing about pretty much everyone I see posing as pundits on cable news shows: HOW DID THEY GET THERE?

It's patently clear that no one is discussing the big picture - and it's likely because THEY. DON'T. KNOW.

@page88 There are a few I can tell do understand the scope, and don't yet speak out because it hasn't been sourced threefold, or at the request of some in intelligence... and though it drives me absolutely bonkers, I can respect that.

@page88 But for anyone on the news who does not know that there's more beyond the daily transactional push-and-pull of stories of degradation of our democracy.

HOW DID THEY GET THERE?

@page88 For anyone who has a platform and regurgitates their opinion on the incessant flow about Trump, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Epstein, Climate Change, etc., but seems to find it unnecessary to bother attempting to unraveling the knot that binds those strings together -

@page88 because - seriously - if they did, they would find it to not be comprised of multiple strings, but one long strand...

Are they simply incurious?
Are they consciously avoiding topics that they know would impact one of their patrons?

@page88 Are they protecting their own self-interest?

All of those questions should demand an answer.

Dvery reader should be able to demand those answers of those in the press. Even better, members of the media should be willing to fully disclose answers to these queries proactively.

@page88 How did you get your job?

What social connections did you leverage to get eyes on your resume, to get an interview, etc?

What social or business links, even tangential or 7th-degree, do you or past institutions have to any individuals currently being discussed in the news?

@page88 And for those who do not voluntarily disclose their connections?

Just like anyone who has multiple non-work phone numbers in Epstein's black book - I think it's fair to assume the worst.

@page88 Because when talking heads either don't understand or intentionally mask the full context of the issues they're debating, they do more harm than good.

And intent matters.

@page88 Everyone with a platform needs to understand when they are landing on stories binding to the narrative framing set up by the architects of this web of deception & disinformation...

@page88 else they will be found culpable of weaving the viscid threads between stories and actors that are set up to keep the public from seeing beyond the individual narratives to the big picture.

@page88 And the big picture is what the public needs to see, in all its bloody horror, if we want this nation to survive.

So if anybody wants to tackle it, please let me know. I know where to get the documents, but access is limited to those without newsroom credentials.

@page88 And, that brings us back to the initial question, which is virtually identical to the issue raised by the ties between Epstein and his favorite scientists:

@page88 for every person who is promoted for reasons outside strict merit, there are others who, equally or more meritorious, do not have access to the social capital, financial resources and promotion of one's career afforded by membership in patrons' clubs.

@page88 And when the members of those 'clubs' seem to be able to reach the biggest platforms, though their arguments push dubious narratives, appear riddled with fallacies and cognitive bias...

when they're all members of the same gender...

@page88 It just makes me wonder what expectations for performance are required for them to maintain their platform...

And it sure makes me wonder what the initiation rites for membership in that club include.

</rant>