/u/maxwellhill has not posted on reddit for 5 years (as of last Wednesday). He or she made his final post the day before Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest, after being possibly the most prolific redditor (and reddit power mod) since joining in 2006
Btw, I consider it likely Jeffrey Epstein never had any actual connections to intelligence/Mossad. It was all Ghislaine: she was glow-in-the-dark royalty. When her boyfriend got arrested, she simply called in favors, and moron Acosta bought the ruse that "he ish valuable asshet"
This might seem unlikely, but remember her father Robert Maxwell had been with MI6 since the 1940s and Mossad since the early 1970s. Mossad was once kind of a dumping ground for right-wing Irgun affiliates who Israel's socialist government hated and made unemployable
These people grew up in kind of unpleasant circumstances because of socialists persecuting them, and as a result are all unnaturally loyal to one another. That's supposedly how Likud took over Israel. Maxwell was close enough to them that he almost bought their soccer team, Betar
Anyway, it seems quite likely that Ghislaine had the pull to ask for one phone call, whether or not she was ever involved in intel wetwork or "massaging" public opinion (one of her media-mogul father's specialties). Was Epstein blackmailing people for her? Well... probably not.
I'm not claiming to know for certain one way or the other, but as the years pass it looks more probable Epstein was blackmailing people on a freelance basis, for his own extremely petty personal reasons.
Jeffrey Epstein was very, very rich by most people's standards (he had hundreds of millions of dollars when he was on trial), but not billions like he claimed. And he wasn't a titan of finance, he managed the money of a single billionaire, Lex Wexner, and probably in a weird way
My best guess is that Epstein realized at some point that most rich people donate far more to poverty/development and disease research than to basic science research. So by making million-dollar donations to prestigious scientists, he could make himself look like a billionaire
He was also simultaneously a prolific party animal; maybe because he enjoyed it, maybe b/c it was another good way to inflate his image. Mild obligation to a good host will keep people from badmouthing you or confirming rumors. If that host knows about bad behavior, even more so
It's clear from news reports and other documents that Epstein was also using this social pressure to press people to donate to his scientific causes. Basically, becoming a bundler of big donations was cheaper than making them himself, for only slightly less clout.
IMHO there may have been a natural progression from lubricating party shenanigans, to enabling his guests' extramarital affairs, to bringing in adult women who were not-quite-escorts, to finding the 17-and-11-months girls who were absolutely perfect blackmail material
I think this is all the scheming there is any evidence for, after all this time. Maybe there was a massive network that got away with the perfect crime, but it's at least as likely that the secret of Epstein's billions was he wanted people to think they existed
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The American colonies were inhabited by a small number of tiny towns. They tamed a stone age continent, fought off an alliance of French and savages along a multi-thousand mile wilderness, then defeated the greatest empire the world had known. They weren't wrong about anything.
The British were absolutely daft to think that after relying on colonial militias again and again and again to fight the French (with no military gains going to the colonists), they could then disarm them with 500-man detachments to prevent them from resisting taxes
If the British had parceled out Ohio and Canada and sold cheap parcels to anyone who fought to take them and defend them, probably the British flag would still be flying on every continent today.
🧵 It seems whenever Carl Schmitt’s “friend-enemy” distinction is brought up, it is badly misunderstood. Liberals think it means “politics is about helping people you like at the expense of people you dislike,” and pretend to think it’s evil while following it slavishly
But this isn’t what it means, or at least not what Schmitt means. In fact, “friend-enemy distinction” is a bit of a misnomer (although it is clear enough in the context of Schmitt’s books); “enemy-rival distinction” would convey his meaning a bit more clearly
The whole idea is that there are two completely different orders of cooperation and competition (which conveniently have different names in Greek and Latin, although we tend to collapse them to “friend” and “enemy” in English).
It is imo extremely important to understand downward mobility in the following terms: if a couple cannot provide their children with the same standard of living their parents provided them, they are *downwardly mobile*, even if their real income is technically higher
You can, for example, have a society where there has been real economic growth measured in the basket of plastic goods and subscription services people can buy, but immigration policies have driven asset prices up, so many people live in smaller houses than their parents
Or you can have gross civic mismanagement such that previously safe and pleasant are now scoured by crime or fire or some other plague: perhaps the couple can afford to live in the same geographic location still, but the quality of life has collapsed
Listening to Harris postmortem podcast now - one interesting point Harris flaks raise is they knew they needed to pivot to the center on several issues, but they judged attempting wouldn’t be credible, would only draw attention to how leftwing her actual policy commitments are
Plouffe says the top five people on the Harris campaign spend hundreds(??) of hours trying to decide how to respond to the they/them ad
The Dem flaks believe that the Trump campaign was explicitly targeting the they/them ad at blacks in Philly and Atlanta markets, but they seem to imply the ultimate effect of the ad was not on blacks but (therefore by implication) on whites
I think it’s a little different. The main issue is elite consensus. Between roughly 1976 and 2016 there was a large (and gradually growing) list of issues where 70% of Americans felt one way, and 95% of people working in politics and media, and their donors, felt the opposite
It was ALWAYS the case, from the 1890s if not earlier, that leftists were traitors, transgressives, bomb-throwers and were happy to violate social and political norms to score points, or even for its own sake. That has been a political constant for over a century
The thing that changed is that from roughly the 1950s-1970s the US (like many Western powers) had done a ton of experiments with leftism. Most of them had failed and people on the ground didn’t like the results. That is where the 70%+ popular consensus comes from
More to the point, the original definition of “the Dark Age” was the age for which (medieval) historians knew of very few events per year, few names and associated with those events, and little else about the people those names belonged to. That is the *definition*!
Any argument about these periods needs to take that as its starting point, and argue about how bad it “really” was substantively, and/or how bad the long term consequences were
For example, I would say that while clearly peace and order suffered, and both libraries and the intellectual apparatus to interpret them suffered from lack of resources, the Dark Ages were a happy period of capital formation and technical innovation