Got put down an interesting Diddy rabbit hole by a friend who worked for Warner Music once upon a time.
Apparently Diddy's dad worked for Frank Lucas, running heroin into the US during vietnam. Familiar with the movie American Gangster? That's Frank Lucas.
Interestingly enough, Diddy was awfully close to the Bronfmans, the wealthy family that owns Seagrams and got its start bootlegging from Canada during the prohibition. Back then, Edgar Bronfman Sr. was the CEO.
How close to the family was he? Well, he hung out with Edgar Jr quite a bit.. Apparently Jeffrey Epstein got his start
And it shouldn't be surprising that Combs, who was essentially the Jeffrey Epstein of the music world, would be so joined at the hip as the made man of the same family as the sisters who ran the NXIVM sex cult, which engaged in trafficking, Sara and Clare Bronfman.
Epstein and the Bronfmans had all the same friends as well. With massive investment in legal human trafficking (immigration) and illegal human trafficking (prostitution). It's good to see the rumors that have been floating around about Diddy finally hit the mainstream.
He was also pals with Naomi Campbell, a known Epstein collaborator according to Virginia Giuffre in her testimony against him.
This video has a good explanation of extra fine details I won't repeat here, as he sums them up pretty well.
There's nothing particularly organic about Sean Combs position. His dad was part of a highly organized crime syndicate with adjacent links to the CIA via the French Connection to the heroine trade. He was born into his profession and uplifted further by wealthy crime families.
And in unraveling the current state of the world in my research, it feels like everything keeps coming back to two families. The Pritzkers, who created Obama from cradle to grave, and the Bronfmans. Two chicago mob families of massive influence.
And in turn, Obama studied under weather underground founder Bill Ayers in Chicago, who introduced him to Penny Pritzker at a house party. Penny would go on to become his commerce secretary, and currently she rules Harvard with an iron grip as its senior fellow to push DEI.
The Pritzkers are a real rogues gallery of assholes, but that's probably a story for another thread. Particularly the only "trans billionaire", "Jennifer" Pritzker.
A friend once told me that every taboo being normalized starts as a billionaires fetish and/or blackmail.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The only facts about the new Pope I've been able to glean thus far as a non catholic:
-He's American
-His timeline reads like leftist coal
-He's made statements disapproving of gays, gay marriage, and women in the clergy
-He's from Chicago (ick)
-He's publicly countersignaled JD Vance on ordo amoris and immigration but also vehemently stated the catholic church shouldn't be endorsing open borders and mass migration, but taking in refugees as they are able to
Some snippets of his:
My overall assessment from looking at a ton of other takes is that this guy appears to be a milquetoast moderate who leans left on immigration but leans right on some social issues like gays and abortions.
Feeling I'm getting is he will be a much less vocal pope than Francis overall
I think we're in the middle of the greatest epistemic re-sorting/unraveling of our lives right now. Shiloh Hendrix, Karmelo Anthony, Tariffs, the Civil Rights Act, White Guilt, TFR, WW2, it all ties together.
The death of boomer neuromythology: 🧵
There's been a lot of collected momentum over the last decade of people in the west realizing that things are *really* not ok, that the world doesn't work as it should. One of the most perturbing are many sets of punitive, unfair, illogical double standards.
Which is what the Shiloh Hendrix incident is really about, a refutation of one of those double standards. Don't focus too much on the event itself, the point is not to justify a mom calling some black kid the gamer word, it's not about what type of person she is or is not either.
"You missed the point of the movie" says the media literacy crowd
>fireman dad murdered by black guy while putting out a fire
>blacks try to break into his truck, shoots one and curb stomps the other, goes to jail
>makes a black friend and decides to reform and become antiracist
>gets out and his little brother is on the same path, tries to persuade him to stop hating black people
>little brother defends a smaller white kid getting beat up on by a ghetto black, gets shot and killed by him the next day
>original ending the director wanted was derek staring in the mirror, full of grief, and deciding to shave his head again
>Edward Norton pitched a fit and had it changed to Derek reciting the final stanza of abe lincolns inaugural address (Abe wanted to send all the blacks to Liberia/Haiti after the civil war was over, but was assassinated)
While I get that the point being made is something about the cycle of hatred repeating itself, at the end of the day it's black people who spend the whole film murdering people for petty reasons and engaging in theft by trying to break into Dereks truck.
About the only thing Derek did that was legally wrong was curb stomping the second thief. But on the other hand we've got the utterly senseless murder of his father and brother by black people with zero impulse control, and yet the theme of the movie is that it's Derek who shouldn't have felt the way that he did.
The film casts essentially no critical judgement on the black people murdering white people, and spends all its time addressing how Derek feels about it.
For all the talk of "dereks dad planting the seeds of racism in him"
Was he really wrong about black people considering he was murdered while putting out a house fire for no particular reason by a black guy?
Making a black friend might show that yeah, not every person of a certain race is a caricature. But stereotypes still exist because they are found to be true often enough to be a good compass to run off of in the macro, if not the micro.
There is something bizarre going on that I can't quite put my finger on, but it can be seen in the replies to this guys post. This guy has been poking around in DMs and replies of lots of RW twitter constantly asking for followbacks.
As I alluded to in another thread, there is something strange going on. Weird influencer accounts in "MAGAville" that have followings relative to exposure that make very little sense.
Couple that with what I saw earlier, why are large "normie" themed MAGA accounts creating "twin brothers" that they are boosting? These accounts are obviously not being accused of impersonation, they are sanctioned, because the "brothers" are mutuals.
Are they using their platforms to boost and create high follower alts to sell? What I have heard goes on is that people will create accounts and use this followback strategy until they reach a certain size, unfollow everyone they follow, change to a blank slate name and PFP, and then sell off the account. People buy these blank slate, high follower count accounts in order to immediately jump into things like monetization and begin to engagement bait.
But there is a certain and very similar "vibe" to all the accounts here. They are all congratulating Dustin here, but despite their followings only getting double digit views and 1 or no likes for the most part. Though there are a few accounts in the replies I know are organic.
Additionally, this huge "knot" of accounts retweet each other constantly, but there is very little actual engagement in their posts compared to a typical 50k+ follower account.
I think the reality of what this guy is talking about is that antipathy towards blacks *from* most whites in this era was more or less gone. That doesn't mean it was reciprocated the other way.
These men are models of what we wanted blacks to be like, not how most of them actually are. Most racial discourse in the US amounts to white people wishing black people would stop doing hood rat shit all the time.
The left thinks this is because they're poor, or grow up without enough government services, which wouldn't explain the fact that poor whites of the same income bracket as poor blacks don't commit nearly as many crimes despite there being way more of them than blacks.
So when libs worship them like cows in India, what they're really saying is "Please see the light and act civilized we will do literally anything other than face the truth of the matter!"
And the traditional white conservative position essentially hinges on the police handling the problem and just throwing them in jail when they break the law while still more or less ignoring the racial element as best as they can.
The only thing that (privately) your average white american on the left or right would agree on if they took a moment to be intellectually honest is that they don't like most of the stereotypical "black" things that exist.
From stochastic irrational violent crime like Karmelo Anthony stabbing a kid for telling him he wasn't where he was supposed to be to black women being rude and disagreeable, whites really hate this shit and wish blacks would just act like Bill Cosby or Will Smith.
The real crime is that they taught an entire generation of white kids to treat blacks like they *were* Bill Cosby and Will Smith, when they are actually models of what white people wish black people were actually like.
The problem is that when anyone tries to confront this problem, the top 20-25 percentile of black america gets held up as an example that stereotyping is wrong and they aren't all like that. This is really just copium to the tune of "But they can change! Look at my black friend who went to college and has a mortgage and a family!"
And good for them, but there's a reason the first thing black people with the ambition for upward mobility do is move away from all the other black people. The problem is that an entire generation was shown an aspirational version of black people and told "See? They're just like you and me!" while most of the black community hadn't changed at all.
So racism wasn't gone, white kids were just shown black people as we wish they were and nobody gave us the memo that this wasn't really true if you lived in a major city. I'm sure all these dudes live in neighborhoods that are majority white.
I had the viewpoint of the OP when I was younger, because there weren't really very many black people where I grew up. So my opinion was largely based on what I saw on TV or online.
But I've been stationed in Biloxi MS.. I've lived in Houston for 10 years now.. Not reality.
That's the other thing.. The Japanese in california had a generation where they were poor, new to the US, and picked our fruit. Next generation they took over landscaping across the state, all gardeners were japanese.
The ironic part is every Indian I've ever talked to on a positive basis generally agrees with me on this. This article is a pretty fascinating inside look, from an Indian who came to the west and had to "un-learn" a lot of things. Eye-opening.