I don't know the truth about Epstein but I will say this. Anyone who thinks "transparency" is easy does not understand the system. Every legal matter in this country is a thicket of barriers to disclosure: confidentially agreements, attorney/client privilege, non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, and classified information in cases like this the disclosure of which involves criminal penalties.

The result is an unfathomably large underworld of legal machinations about which the public knows nothing. And never will. This is true in every sector, to say nothing of the classified sector. Transparency is a slogan, something easy to expect and demand, but the reality is impenetrably complicated and fraught with grave consequences all around. Every bit of litigation means burying facts deep within this substructure of public life, everything mediated by lawyers and judges and settlements with infinitely complicated terms that are valid in perpetuity. The long case of Epstein must face a thicket more complicated than any in human history.

Amazing talk by Zuckerberg. It begins by saying that the takedowns of normal content were an algorithmic mistake. But as he continues, he admits it was deliberate policy. THEN he outright says it: this policy was imposed on them by the US government! Are you listening Supreme Court?

https://x.com/teslaownersSV/status/1876606982096093651

The weirdest part is how he claims that all content moderation will move out of California and into Texas because Texans are actual normal people.

VERY SERIOUS: of all the documents I've seen over 4 years of research and writing, this is the one that shocks me the most. The amount of institutional pathology that allowed for it to be written/published is beyond comprehension. brownstone.org/articles/the-c… yes of course concentration camps and using public schools to set them up. This is real, my friends.

We still do not have clarity on the timeline of the turnkey totalitarianism that seize the US for years ago starting March 13, 2020. That's when the Trump admin invoked the Stafford Act, thereby granting FEMA new powers and money, and HHS issued its then-secret lockdown plans in the form of PanCAP Adapted.

Here's what's weird. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday.

According to their account, that was when they talked him into lockdowns and 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made!

There are only two possibilities. One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it.

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic. And to this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. And please, if anyone can shed light on this, please do so in the comments. This is a rather important issue, wouldn't you say? Why is no one even slightly interested in this or the wild inconsistencies in the public narrative?

Question for theologians. If Purgatory, which is supposed to prepare us for Heaven, exists within time, that presumes we have volition, which suggests that we can be formed by circumstances of time and place. Why should we presume that people would exit more prepared to leave and enter Heaven, than when we came in? Let's say we live there 7,000 years, not an unreasonable assumption if we can believe the old prayer books. Would we not become ever more angry & resentful than ever after all that time, especially if the environment was vaguely punitive?

So much information is pouring out about the plots and schemes of Fauci/Collins/Farrar/Daszak, and with Redfield now talking to reporters, things could get really very interesting. My key question: how is the presumption that the virus came from a lab leak linked to the policy decision to embrace and push (very hard) lockdowns as a solution, a wildly experimental method of virus control that had a low possibility of success but which produced huge calamities? What was the motivation here and how was that influenced by the coverup?

After two years of researching and writing about this disaster, I still cannot easily answer the question: why? The WEF is annoying but it can't overthrow the idea of freedom on its own. Pharm has power but not that much power. Gates's money is compelling but how can it dictate to all governments in the world? I'm sure there are other nefarious groups in the running for the core of the great conspiracy. In the end, this whole thing I think is best explained as a revolt against freedom coming from many sectors: gov, academia, media, vaunted

1 After a full day of media interviews on the only issue that exists, I'm completely astonished at the amazing display of fake knowledge, fake models, fake cause-and-effect analysis, fake expertise, fake mental paradigms, fake timelines, and so on, that saturate media culture. 2 It's the ultimate groupthink, exactly like what imagined happened in the 12th century when mysterious happenings were going on and some soothsayer announced the answer, and everyone believed him, with horrific consequences, such as random pogroms and burnings.