Jeffrey Epstein thread

[Lurgee]

Judges being reluctant to make a distinction, in the light of the sexual liberation movement, doesn't.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Not sure if I agree with this, Paedophilia and men procuring underage girls for sex (I'll suspend comment on the overage prostitutes for now) precedes the sexual liberation movement of the 60's by a few thousand years.

This is a trap that a lot of people fell into at the time. think about it this way, it was illegal to have inter racial sex, it was illegal to have gay sex, and it was illegal to do X. There's a lot of people who are going to look at those first two positions and how insanely wrong they are and come to the conclusion that making any kind of sex illegal is wrong, so why should it be illegal to do X where X is anything from child abuse to bestiality. It's nonsense, but it can make sense if you don't twig that consent is the important thing.

In the UK you wound up with things like the Paedophile information exchange, and you wound up with a bunch of early gay rights activists who had to readjust some of their earlier public positions when they saw past the whole "We are all brothers in oppression." fog.

[Incandenza]

IHE article on Steven Pinker and his reaction to being connected to Epstein.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...9C1UPI.twitter

[Tactical Genius]

Judges being reluctant to make a distinction, in the light of the sexual liberation movement, doesn't.

Good point. However, the sexual revolution and free love in the 60's was primarily about two things that would have got you killed previously:

Homosexuality
Interracial sexual access

And in many cases both at the same time.
I agree Homosexuality was conflated with Peadophillia, but I assumed that came a bit later like the 80's (i am only in my mid 40's so I could be wrong on this). Regardless, Dirty old men sleeping with underage girls until very recently wasn't taken seriously on the odd occasion it reached court anyway. See all the mitigating statements when Rix went to prison for plying the underage girl with alcohol and weed before sleeping with her.

[Amor de Cosmos]

However, the sexual revolution and free love in the 60's was primarily about two things that would have got you killed previously:

Homosexuality
Interracial sexual access

Mmmm. Only partly. Mainly it was about having sex outside marriage at all. Which I know seems weird by today's standards, but prior to reliable female contraception, the risks were considerable for working and middle class British and American kids. For young women, obviously, but also for young men. If you wanted to screw you'd better get married, which is why teenage marriages were way more common than they are today.

[Lang Spoon]

Good point. However, the sexual revolution and free love in the 60's was primarily about two things that would have got you killed previously:

Homosexuality
Interracial sexual access

And in many cases both at the same time.
I agree Homosexuality was conflated with Peadophillia, but I assumed that came a bit later like the 80's (i am only in my mid 40's so I could be wrong on this). Regardless, Dirty old men sleeping with underage girls until very recently wasn't taken seriously on the odd occasion it reached court anyway. See all the mitigating statements when Rix went to prison for plying the underage girl with alcohol and weed before sleeping with her.

Was more late 60s (see the Oz thread) and 70s where pederasty almost became acceptable in Progressive circles. Though fuckin Wyman escaped prosecution in the 80s despite the whole Mandy Smith thing.

i still don't understand why John Peel or Bowie are given free passes, let alone obvious irredeemable sweaty junky wrong uns like Jimmy Page.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

I agree Homosexuality was conflated with Peadophillia, but I assumed that came a bit later like the 80's

The gay and straight ages of consent in the UK were only equalized in 2003. Up until 1994 you could theoretically be prosecuted for having sex with a 20 year old. So you can see how that might distort some people's thinking. But there has been absolutely no excuse for thinking that way for a long time now.

That Pinker Article is interesting. One thing that I took from it is regardless of whether or not what he says is true, it's that you'd have to be terrified of attending any social function with really rich people, because you don't know which of them is Patrick Bateman, and before you know it, you're in a photograph with the American Psycho. . I was reading an article in New York Magazine about Ghislaine Maxwell (which I can't link to because I burned through my free reads,) but in it there's a picture of Captain Bob's Daughter with Elon Musk at the 2014 Vanity Fair oscars after party. Now in the normal course of events he might know who she is, and of her connection to Jeffrey Epstein, but when this photo is taken he's clearly so drunk that he doesn't know where he is.

[Lang Spoon]

Pinker is just the optimistic mirror of Jordan Scientist of the Dolorous Countenance Peterson. With worse hair. A Panglossian Reactionary. Oh how I'd laugh like a drain if he's on an Epstein tape along with WJC, AD, DT and the rest.

Evolutionary Psychology from Lorenz down to this egregious bastard is pure reactionary pish. Up there with Kipling's Just So stories as a scientific theory of How Things Are (so let's not bother fighting for change).

[ursus arctos]

[Lang Spoon]

She is the absolute spit of her brother.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

See what I mean. You go out for a nice evening of drinking yourself to oblivion, and you end up in a compromising picture. I'd say you must have been at a few social or business events over the years Ursus, where there were people that on balance you are glad that you weren't photographed near, based on what you now know

I must admit that today was very late in the day for me to realise that Epstein's missus was Robert Maxwell's daughter. I suspect that if I had read about this story in the Uk press, that fact would have been considerably more front and centre.

[ursus arctos]

Bail denied

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1151878350706810881

I wonder if he will get the same deal to avoid Rikers Island that Manafort did

[Incandenza]

The Dersh has an unhinged op-ed talking about a smear campaign against him and a hit job being prepared by the New Yorker. He published it at...Newsmax. Clearly no one else is willing to publish him at this point.

https://donotlink.it/1Klp

[Lang Spoon]

I guess it's too much to hope that fecker will face charges soon himself.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

The Dersh has an unhinged op-ed talking about a smear campaign against him and a hit job being prepared by the New Yorker. He published it at...Newsmax. Clearly no one else is willing to publish him at this point.

That sentence is proceeding along in a steady, kind of humdrum "this is 2019 so brace yourself" kind of way, until clang, it hits you right between the eyes. Oh dear. That happened quickly didn't it?

[ursus arctos]

[URL="https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1151787467277819905?s=21"]https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1151787467277819905[/URL]

[ursus arctos]

[URL="https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1152555197161517059?s=21"]https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1152555197161517059[/URL]

[ursus arctos]

[URL="https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/1153348860502257664?s=21"]https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/1153348860502257664[/URL]

[Posty Webber]

https://ahtribune.com/us/3296-did-pe...or-mossad.html

Here's another that links Clinton and Epstein. So much of this appears exaggerated or fake but who knows.

That article: The Jewish state. The Jewish state. The Jewish state.

Fuck off cunt.

[Antepli Ejderha]

That article: The Jewish state. The Jewish state. The Jewish state.

Fuck off cunt.

First of all have you read what I wrote in linking to that article?

Secondly why launch a personal attack using sexist and degrading language?

[ad hoc]

I hope that Posty was directing his ire at the writer of the article not you, AE. I think if so, he does have a point, there is a bit of dodgy dog whistle stuff going on there, which detracts from the piece (which may or may not have some veracity, as you say)

[Posty Webber]

First of all have you read what I wrote in linking to that article?

Secondly why launch a personal attack using sexist and degrading language?

Yes. It’s a general scream into the void mainly aimed at the author. Poster gets a very sweaty pass mark.

[G-Man]

By my count, he phrase "Jewish state" is used twice in the article, both times following sentences using the name "Israel". The term "Jewish state" -- which is how Israel identifies itself by law -- might have been used as an editorial device, not as a dogwhistle. Maybe thew "cunt" of Posty Webber's outburst is just an anonymous sub-editor.

Having said that, a phrase like "the effectiveness of Jewish power in Washington" is a bit dodgy. How much that detracts from the central premise of the article, I'd not like to be the judge of.

[ad hoc]

Yes that line really stands out. Why not "Israeli power"?