Once more about Epstein...

Since the latest outburst in The Discourse I have read up more on Epstein, particularly from people who believe Epstein was an intelligence asset (I listened to @esaagar on the Andrew Schulz podcast), because I always want to hear the steelman case against what I believe, and I have to say that the more I listen the MORE I am convinced that Epstein was just a random rich sex pervert who had sex parties a la Diddy.

What's more, it's the things that the conspiracists POINT TO which convince me that Epstein COULD NOT have been a spy.

1. "He was a college dropout who became a math teacher and then became super rich."

So, there's an amazing French TV series titled "Le Bureau des légendes," which I believe is available in the US under the title "The Bureau" and has been remade as a US series as "The Agency." It was made in cooperation with the French spy agency DGSE and every intelligence expert I'm aware of says it's the most realistic spy show out there, and it's specifically about undercover agents.

One of the plotlines is about the DGSE getting an agent to get recruited as a seismologist in Iran to get close to the country's scientific elite.

You know how they got an agent to pose as a seismologist? They recruited a student at a top science school and MADE HER DO A PHD IN SEISMOLOGY.

The reason she was able to pose as a seismologist is because she WAS a seismologist. Because obviously if she WASN'T a seismologist, she'd immediately get exposed after six months working around real seismologists. And because the best covers have the maximum amount of actual truth in there.

If they want somebody to be a lawyer, they MAKE HIM GO TO LAW SCHOOL AND PASS THE BAR WITHOUT CHEATING.

If the Mossad or CIA or anybody else wanted to create this Gatsby-financier type character, they would NEVER, EVER, in a MILLION YEARS approve the following cover story: "Ok, so, he dropped out of high school, became a maths teacher at an exclusive prep school, and this allowed him to become close to a guy and get hired at Bear Stearns, and then he gets some other rich billionaire to sign away his fortune. Yep, makes sense. And then he's going to pose as this super rich guy, but he's not going to have a real hedge fund and we just have to hope nobody asks too many questions."

No, first of all, the Mossad would recruit somebody named JAMES WORTHINGTON IV, not Chaim Jewstein, they would make sure he had an Ivy League degree, they would make sure he got hired LEGITIMATELY at JP Morgan and then AFTER FIVE YEARS they would set him up to start a hedge fund. And that hedge fund would be a REAL hedge fund, which would hire REAL analysts, who would have no idea that this isn't a legitimate hedge fund, and who would make REAL trades. The seed money would come from the intelligence agencies, and they would provide a backstop if necessary, but 80-90% of the activity would be totally legitimate.

2. Gatsby characters actually exist

Did you read The Great Gatsby? Fitzgerald wrote that novel because such characters actually existed. Gatsby was a fraud, but he was not a creation by any intelligence service.

Gatsby-type characters who have the gift of the gab and the schmooze and find ways to con (whether in the literal sense or in a broader figurative sense) rich people out of their money happen all the time. That's about 80% of Republican-consultant world and 70% of Democrat-consultant world.

One of the heirs to the Hermès family fortune signed away 4 billion euros to his gardener. To this day nobody knows exactly why; the assumption was they were lovers but apparently that's not true; probably he was just the only charming and interesting person in his life. Many such cases. There was a huge financial scandal in France when Liliane Bettencourt, then the richest person in France (L'Oréal heiress) turned out to have suffered from dementia and had been preyed upon by all sorts of grifters who got her to sign away huge chunks of her fortune.

You have NO idea how often this happens because most of those stories get squished because they are hugely embarrassing--IF they are found out, which obviously is not always.

And of course some of these guys get a head too big and fly too close to the Sun and crash out.

Like Epstein. Epstein clearly had a gift of the gab, of schmoozing. He probably also managed to acquire real skills in the area of wealth management.

Again, all of the stuff about Epstein that screams "sketchy" also screams "NOT SPY". Another obvious example: the mansion. Would an intelligence-created Epstein type have some sort of swanky Manhattan residence for the parties/sex parties? Sure. Would it be THE biggest mansion in all of Manhattan? NO, OF COURSE NOT. That's CERTAIN to attract unwanted attention. The only person who would do that is a narcissist sociopath weirdo who very much does NOT have an intelligence handler.

3. Epstein was Jewish and was connected to a lot of Jews and Zionists

When discussing Epstein, everybody talks about a famous Mossad op where they did create a character in Syria who was this socialite who threw big parties in Damascus and got access to the Syrian elite and Syrian government secrets that way.

What they usually fail to mention was that while that agent was Jewish, he posed as a NON-JEWISH Egyptian businessman.

For pretty obvious reasons. If some guy named Moshe Ben Judah was throwing swanky parties in Damascus, OF COURSE everyone would NATURALLY assume he was a Mossad agent.

Seems pretty intuitive that when Epstein got his start in the world of providing various financial services to the super rich, he leaned on his Jewish identity, that his early clientele had more Jews than non-Jews, and that those Jews would tend to introduce him more often to other Jews, and that many of those Jews would also happen to be supporters of Israel in some sense.

Which makes total sense if Epstein was this social climber character. And makes ZERO sense if Epstein was a Mossad creation.

If he was a Mossad creation, A. they would have picked someone non-Jewish or given him a non-Jewish identity, and B. every bank or institution or individual that would have given him his start in that world would have been somebody THREE CUTOUTS AWAY from ANYTHING remotely smacking of Jews or Israel.

4. Epstein was connected to Israeli Prime Ministers

This one is the final straw, because it is by far the most retarded.

In fact it is so retarded that I cannot believe that anybody makes this argument with a straight face.

Epstein was connected to several Israeli Prime Ministers, and in particular after his premiership Ehud Barak would come stay at his mansion.

Can I just point out that this is INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE that Epstein was NOT a Mossad agent or asset in any way shape or form?

Like, how fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that the Israelis had this amazing asset at the heart of the American elite, and then the Prime Ministers, who would obviously know about this asset, would DROP BY TO HANG OUT WITH HIM PUBLICLY?

This would be like if, while Kim Philby was in MI6 as a Soviet double agent, and Khruschchev came on a state visit to the UK, he stayed in Philby's flat and had dinner with Philby at his club in full view of everyone.

Of course Khrushchev would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS come anywhere NEAR Philby PRECISELY because he was an enormously important Soviet agent!!!

Like, how DUMB can people be to believe this?

Imagine that Nixon or Kissinger or Carter or whoever in his post-White House life, knew from his days in the government that Boris Popov, this key figure in the Soviet Communist Party who knew everyone and schmoozed everyone, was actually a CIA. And so Nixon is travelling to the Soviet Union on a goodwill tour to give speeches or promote his book or whatever, and he thinks "Oh yeah! Why don't I go hang out with Popov! He's one of our guys, I'll just hang out at his dacha for a couple days, have lunch with him at the Arbat."

The word for this is TREASON. It's INSANITY.

And, of course, if, in this TOTALLY ABSURD BIZARRO UNIVERSE, Nixon had this idea, then the Popov in question would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS agree to such a thing. He would fake an illness. He would have an aunt in Kamchatka that suddenly died.

And probably as soon as Nixon came back to the US, he would be arrested and sent to Guantanamo for the rest of his life for deliberately trying to expose a key CIA agent. Which is how everyone with knowledge of the facts would interpret such an action.

And the whole notion would be so absurd that Popov would FREAK THE FUCK OUT and almost certainly either disappear forever or turn, thinking that the entire notion was a scheme by the Americans to get him killed by his own people for some reason.

I CANNOT find the words to convey how DEEPLY DEEPLY RETARDED it is to say "Oh, Epstein was super chummy with Ehud Barak, therefore he probably was a Mossad agent." Epstein fits a very classical profile, which is the high IQ narcissistic sociopaths.

One trait of narcissistic sociopathy is an ability to charm people.

Another trait is poor impulse control and, related to that, issues with sex addiction or substance abuse.

Epstein's checkered history actually fits that very well.

High IQ sociopaths are often dropouts because they can get into good programs but they don't have the discipline to get a degree.

It makes sense that an intelligent charmer would find a way to get hired as a maths teacher at an exclusive prep school, and then get fired for sexually harassing the students.

It makes sense that he would still be able to make the right connections at the school to get hired on Wall Street. (And remember this was Boomer-World. There are MILLIONS of stories of random guys getting hired on Wall Street on a smile and a handshake because they seemed smart and go-getter and presentable.)

It makes sense that he would gravitate to wealth management, a relationships-based business rather than a substantive-skills-based business.

It makes sense that he would eventually get fired for insider trading.

It makes sense that he would still have the connections to "con" (whether in the literal sense of defrauding or in a broader figurative sense of managing to pose as a financial genius and wildly overcharging for pretty vanilla wealth management services) rich people out of tons of money.

It makes sense that he would build himself this absurd life, with the giant mansion, the four Gulfstreams or whatever, the private island (there was a great bit by Eric Weinstein where he pointed out that most of the superrich actually don't own private islands because it's a logistical nightmare to fly there and it's just easier to own a mansion with a private beach), the over-the-top quality of it all fits the profile of a narcissistic sociopath and very much NOT of any sort of intelligence operative.

It makes sense that he would traffic teenagers, including American teenagers (very dumb), that he would fly too close to the sun in all these obviously dumb ways like associating with prominent politicians, that he would have poor OPSEC (like keeping the videotapes in his own house), that he would get caught once, and that he would STILL keep doing it. It makes sense that he would make shit up like bragging about being connected to intelligence. And it makes sense that in the end he would kill himself rather than suffer the humiliation and pain of a lifetime prison sentence.

All of that is consistent with the profile of an intelligent, very socially-adept, narcissistic sociopath. And not with the profile of an intelligence asset or operative.

And, of course, intelligence agencies work very hard to weed out these types of characters because they make terrible agents because they have low impulse control and are incapable of loyalty to anything beyond themselves.

- Taxes are worse (not true 20 years ago)
- Regulations are worse (not true 20 years ago)
- Bureaucracy/govt competence is much worse (not true 20 years ago)
- Policing/public safety is now MUCH worse (HUGE change from 20 years ago)
- Health system is much, much worse (also true 20 years ago but the increased taxes make it more egregious)
- Immigration is now WORSE in the UK
- State schools shitty in both countries but private school in UK is £20K/yr vs €3K/yr in France
- Universities arguably better in some ways but also über-woke unlike French grandes écoles (besides Sciences Po) which still provide world-class education with much better value for money even though they’re not as swanky as Oxbridge; you can argue UK is better but you can argue the reverse and more importantly the UK has been getting worse fast while France is roughly holding steady
- Pubs (one of the great delights of British life) are dying
- And, obviously, eternally: the food sucks, it rains constantly, etc.

I say this as someone who loves British civilization and wants to see it thrive. The speed and scale of the crash is absolutely astounding. - Intellectual/cultural life is much worse because everyone is America-brained so there is no original thought going on, just rehashing of US stuff whether on left or right

Regular reminder that all the Biblical passages about "welcoming the stranger" relate to extending *hospitality* to travelers (who by definition depart on their merry way) and has nothing to do with immigration policy.

Witness the many times in the Bible where Israel fights invaders with God’s blessing and at God’s express urging

Withess the many times in the Bible where God scolds Israel for allowing strangers to live in Israel, and that this corrupts the people because it brings foreign practices such as polytheism and idol worship

Not that anybody making this argument is intellectually honest or actually interested in understanding God’s will through the Bible. Hospitality was a huge deal in the Ancient world because travel was long and arduous and dangerous and if you had to camp out in the middle of nature you were very likely to get robbed or murder. It’s a huge thing in every Ancient culture we know of.

It’s simply absurd to suggest that anyone in the Bible could have written or understood those passages to mean "You have to let large numbers of random strangers settle in your country indefinitely if they feel like it"

And in fact, the Bible on *numerous occasions* discusses this very possibility and *every single time* GOD HIMSELF says "This is very bad, don’t do it"

Most of the schools in England were run by the monasteries so the literacy rate in England went from almost 50% to ~10% in a generation.

https://twitter.com/anglochog/status/1938968379081269333

Also the "papal religion" had already "taken hold" for a thousand years and it took astonishing amounts of violence and oppression to draw the English away from the true faith.

One of the puzzles I have is that the French don't have a reputation for autism, even though we are one of the most autistic nations on Earth: we invented French gardens, the metric system, we administratively divided our nation into little squares that are not related to history or geography because it made us feel better, we're one of the world's top math nations, all French philosophy is basically about how the key to life the universe and everything is abstract spergy logic-chopping...


Like, who looks at grass, trees, and flowers, and thinks, "Yes, the thing to do is to turn this into PERFECT GEOMETRICAL SHAPES." Not even the Germans could come up with this.

Apart from everything else, American liberals are deeply, deeply provincial people. Ignorant about the world, unsophisticated, uncultured. Truly.

https://twitter.com/gavinnewsom/status/1933623930193129852

The reaction when I meet Middle-Americans vs Coastal-Americans and tell them I’m French is very different. Middle-Americans have *genuine curiosity and interest*, ask me questions about the country, etc. Coastal-Americans, of course, already think they know everything they need to know about France (it’s a socialist utopia).

Holy shit Pope Leo XIII was based.

I mean, I knew, but I didn’t know. In his encyclical on socialism:
- Sounds downright Tea Party-ish in his defense of private property
- Identifies the root of socialism as greed and love of money, any claims to empathy are just a pretext
- Identifies that the true goal of socialism is to destroy the family

"I killed many of my children to slightly alter the odds of one of my children getting a disability. Praise me."

Look, there’s no ifs or buts. This is just pure evil. End of civilization

https://twitter.com/noor_siddiqui_/status/1907178921315250630

Agamemnon sacrificed just one child and his family and nation were cursed over several generations.

We deserve every punishment

I think the whole concept of a "personal essay" in a college application is ridiculous, you’re 17, you have nothing interesting to say about yourself, and I don’t know what colleges "expect" but I can’t help but be struck at how female-coded this response is (and how male-coded the original essay is)—and I assume it’s accurate because I assume most university admissions officers are women and you have to write something really female-coded to appeal to them. PS @zach_yadegari it’s "rite of passage" not "right of passage"

So Marine Le Pen is sentenced to
- "Ineligbility" (unable to run for elected office) for 5 years with "provisory execution" (meaning the sentence must be served even during appeal--inexplicable, the judge only said "it appears necessary" to impose provisory execution)
- 100 000 euro fine
- 4 years imprisonment, with the first two years to be served under house arrest and the remainder suspended Just pure banana republic stuff.

"supremely authentic culture, with its deep roots and ancient connection to the land."

Almost all Palestinians are Ottoman Arabs who arrived in the late 19th & early 20th c to take advantage of economic opportunities created by Jewish settlement (it was a deserted dump before)

https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1905227685946945731

I encourage Ms Johnstone to sample the "authentic culture" of the Palestinians by walking around Ramallah with her head uncovered without a male guardian.

JFC

As someone who grew up here, the switch in popularity from soccer to rugby is absolutely 100% linked to race. Once soccer became seen as a sport for Africans high-SES French people gravitated to rugby.

https://twitter.com/real_comfyfren/status/1904261942656594371

It's just a fact. The "vibe" of the sport changed. The 1998 World Cup win was the last time the entire country was united behind the team, and the government tried to sell it as a win for diversity.

Here’s the thing about morning routine porn:

- Men have convinced themselves that if they get the morning routine right it will give them the "momentum" to carry on through a productive day and not relapse to porn/vidya/acedia

- This is a trick. The real purpose of this mind virus is so when you fail at some part of the routine (which is why the routine has to be absurd and complicated) you then have a mental "excuse" to jerk off all day (literally or figuratively). "Oh well, I tried, but today I just didn’t get the right conditions. I’ll try again tomorrow."

- Obviously tiktok hustlers feed this delusion with "I own (lease) a Lambo and this is my morning routine in the LA mansion I rented for the day" slop content

- Obviously the whole conceit is BS and a mind virus. There’s no such thing as "momentum." What there is is the decision to make difficult choices every moment of every day and when you slip up getting up RIGHT AWAY and not making EXCUSES about how you’ll get it just right TOMORROW.

Stay strong out there, men "Brushing my teeth in the morning saved my life"

Ok here’s the TRUTH about women that blackpill incel merchants won’t tell you.

Everything about this is fundamental and you have to understand all parts and how they fit together.

1. Women are intuitive. Their mind unconsciously collects aggregates tons of signals about men to produce a verdict attractive/not attractive. THEY DO NOT FUNCTION ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE/FACTUAL CRITERIA LIKE MEN. They are "vibe" oriented but the vibe is not just pure irrationality, it’s a product of their intuition subconsciously taking a very large range of criteria into account.

1a. This accounts for the "ick" phenomenon but ALSO accounts for the fact that women can inexplicably get smitten for a guy who normally wouldn’t be in their league. This is an equally real phenomenon but somehow it doesn’t have a name & isn’t talked about by blackpill merchants.

2. There is MUCH GREATER VARIATION among women than among men in what they find attractive. What one woman finds repellent the other may find attractive and vice versa (perfect example: body/facial hair).

3. You cannot trust what women say about what they say they’re attracted to or not. It may be a shit test but most often it’s due to 1. Even if they mean it, that’s not how their intuitive brain works. And because of 2, even if one particular woman with strong self-knowledge says something accurate *about herself* you can’t generalize to women in general.

4. There’s a famous French comedy movie titled "It’s Better To Be Rich, Handsome, And In Good Health Than Poor, Ugly, And Sick" This is obvious. But once we’ve said that, does that mean you must blackpill unless you’re Brad Pitt? Ridiculous.

5. If you want to get a 5/10 or above, you gotta have SOMETHING. You gotta have, or develop, SOMETHING that makes you stand out or be interesting or attractive or high status. There’s no free lunch.

5a. But the good news is that "something" can be A LOT OF THINGS because of 1 & 2. There’s a good probability that you can develop SOMETHING that SOME women will find quite attractive. It can be humor or rizz or a clothing style or a sexy hobby (@alpharivelino) or a niche interest or a talent. There’s lots and lots of potential things that SOME women will find attractive. Eg card magic in every poll is rated as cringe, nerdy, sad, etc. I have a friend who’s a 7/10 card magician and I have watched him MELT hot women at parties with simple card tricks. He’s short and very shy and nerdy. His live-in gf is a 10/10 former model from Brazil.

6. This is fundamentally why the blackpill merchants are evil: it’s about WHAT YOU HAVE, NOT what you don’t have. In other words, NOTHING IS A DEALBREAKER. If a woman says she won’t date a man under 6’, even if she means it, if she meets a man who has A THING that rizzes her, she will forget about her 6’ rule. It’s about what you have, not what you don’t have. You can be short and get beautiful mid gf. You can be poor and get beautiful mid gf. Etc etc. Obviously these things don’t help you BUT THEY’RE NOT DEALBREAKERS

7. What this all means, I’m afraid, is that you do have to work on yourself, and that’s harder than chugging blackpills all day. You have to simply forget about the weaknesses you can’t change and identify one or two strengths and work on them and get out there and accept that, JUST LIKE CHAD, you will get more "no’s" than "yes’s". But if you DO work on yourself THERE IS HOPE

Fin. I literally had an example of this just today. My wife and I were watching the F1 Grand Prix. There was a shot of Alex Albon’s girlfriend and I commented on how shockingly hot she was.

Her: "Well, he *is* quite attractive."

Me: "What? No he’s not."

Her: "Yes he is!"

I drop the subject.

After the GP Albon is interviewed.

Wife: "See? He’s got such a beautiful smile!"

And I noticed it’s true. Albon isn’t conventionally handsome but he has a great smile.

He has a THING.

Your thing can be anything.

Straight into my fucking veiiiiiiiiins Uh, buddy, no. I would know. Not true. Sadly.

I don't know how you can read the writings of Jefferson and Franklin, or of the Yankee abolitionists before and during the Civil War, or the late 19th progressive movement, and not conclude that hyperliberalism/"wokeness" is fundamentally an Anglo-Protestant movement. Yes, America is fundamentally an Anglo-Protestant nation...and inside it are two wolves

This thread zeroes in on the key issue that immigration advocates constantly dodge: welcoming immigrants helps one group of people *and hurts another group of people*.

Pointing out that it’s good to help people, even, or even especially, if they are strangers, is neither here nor there.

It’s also bad to hurt people, even, or even especially, if they’re your fellow citizens!

My fellow citizens of the working and middle classes who are hurt by immigration are, both figuratively and literally, MY NEIGHBORS. And if we’re going to pull out flowery Christian language, can I just point out that the lower-SES half of the native citizens of the West are called THE FORGOTTEN MAN? THEY are the Samaritan, ie the outcast, the one who is never taken care of, the downtrodden, even the scapegoat, since we’re told that the only reason they have grievances is they’re nazis, violent, bigoted, etc.

The point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that you should help the person God actually puts in front of you.

Augustine opens his discussion of the ordo amoris by making this point.

The WHOLE POINT is that if you engage in the kind of performative telescopic pseudo-empathy that libs traffic in, you’re doing it wrong. This is not some esoteric interpretation. Jesus tells the parable talking to Pharisees, whose main trait in the gospels is precisely constant virtue signaling about abstract things while failing to exercise charity in their actual daily lives and personal interactions.

This was a fascinating read. One learns: (1) the Church’s care for migrants is primarily directed at Catholics (ordo amoris); (2) there are three limiting factors for immigration: the host population must AGREE; "the sovereignty of the state must be respected" (must be done legally); it cannot deplete "the national wealth"

papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12exsu…


In other words the Church wishes countries generally had more generous immigration policies but it believes that those countries should FREELY CHOOSE TO DO SO, not that people are allowed to sneak in, breaking the law, and then their governments should be morally blackmailed into not doing anything about blatant law-breaking.

Can't believe I'm doing this...

The History of the Roman Salute, a thread. 🧵 Elon Musk did a Roman Salute. This is different from a Nazi salute. With the Roman Salute you put your hand to your heart before extending your arm.

Uh, yes.

French historian Pierre Milza likes to talk about how his Italian parents wouldn’t allow him to speak Italian in the house because they wanted him to assimilate into French culture.

Losing your original language and adopting a new language is an obvious criterion of assimilation.

Our standards have fallen so low that we’ve forgotten what assimilation looks like, let alone promoting or enforcing it. Here's why this bait is so revealing: if immigrants really were coming here out of love of the country, and not pecuniary motives, they would naturally WANT to do these things. Countless historical examples can be found.