• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
1596049433737.jpeg
 
Look out because it's ZeroHedge


Dozens of exhibits related to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were unsealed Thursday evening, providing insight into allegations against the financier and his purported 'madam,' as well as other high-profile individuals, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and several other people whose names one can only guess (and the internet has).



The documents, related to a 2015 civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, were ordered to be released on July 23 by US District Judge Loretta Preska - which also included flight logs from Epstein's private jets, as well as police reports from the multiple locations where Epstein maintained residences.
 
Thing is, it's all very sordid. But we have all known it goes on. In a distant way, we're all complicit.
Like the "Me Too" movement highlighted sexual abuse in the film industry, and everyone looked so damn surprised while for DECADES the phrase "the casting couch" was used with a smile and a wink, everyone is surprised this has gone on.
If you are a multimillionaire, you can pay people, you can buy people, to do anything you want. That's why these people want to be multimillionaires. It's a 'perk' of the position. Normal rules don't apply. If it goes to court then YOU have chums that you've got leverage on to get you off. The judge "just happens" to be given a perk by a friend of yours ... and so on.
The attainment of wealth as a life objective perpetuates this toxic attitude!
If you are poor, you are told to work to become rich. If you become rich then you are told you aren't rich enough to 'qualify'. When you qualify as ultra-rich then your concern doesn't focus on maintaining your wealth but maintaining the privilege that your wealth brings. It's like a financial "keeping up with the Jones" but detaching yourself from the less wealthy.
What I've never got my head around is ... why?
Money is the power behind the world and money can make your life easier but why put this value on money, play up to absolute wankers, if your life can exist without the "extras"?
 
Last edited:
Thing is, it's all very sordid. But we have all known it goes on. In a distant way, we're all complicit.
Like the "Me Too" movement highlighted sexual abuse in the film industry, and everyone looked so damn surprised while for DECADES the phrase "the casting couch" was used with a smile and a wink, everyone is surprised this has gone on.
If you are a multimillionaire, you can pay people, you can buy people, to do anything you want. That's why these people want to be multimillionaires. It's a 'perk' of the position. Normal rules don't apply. If it goes to court then YOU have chums that you've got leverage on to get you off. The judge "just happens" to be given a perk by a friend of yours ... and so on.
The attainment of wealth as a life objective perpetuates this toxic attitude!
If you are poor, you are told to work to become rich. If you become rich then you are told you aren't rich enough to 'qualify'. When you qualify as ultra-rich then your concern doesn't focus on maintaining your wealth but maintaining the privilege that your wealth brings. It's like a financial "keeping up with the Jones" but detaching yourself from the less wealthy.
What I've never got my head around is ... why?
Money is the power behind the world and money can make your life easier but why put this value on money, play up to absolute wankers, if your life can exist without the "extras"?
Psychopathology. These people have a mental illness. They believe they are superior, even to other ultra-rich people.
 
Last edited:
Isn't being able to do what you want without repercussions reason enough?
 
Thing is, it's all very sordid. But we have all known it goes on. In a distant way, we're all complicit.
Like the "Me Too" movement highlighted sexual abuse in the film industry, and everyone looked so damn surprised while for DECADES the phrase "the casting couch" was used with a smile and a wink, everyone is surprised this has gone on.
If you are a multimillionaire, you can pay people, you can buy people, to do anything you want. That's why these people want to be multimillionaires. It's a 'perk' of the position. Normal rules don't apply. If it goes to court then YOU have chums that you've got leverage on to get you off. The judge "just happens" to be given a perk by a friend of yours ... and so on.
The attainment of wealth as a life objective perpetuates this toxic attitude!
If you are poor, you are told to work to become rich. If you become rich then you are told you aren't rich enough to 'qualify'. When you qualify as ultra-rich then your concern doesn't focus on maintaining your wealth but maintaining the privilege that your wealth brings. It's like a financial "keeping up with the Jones" but detaching yourself from the less wealthy.
What I've never got my head around is ... why?
Money is the power behind the world and money can make your life easier but why put this value on money, play up to absolute wankers, if your life can exist without the "extras"?
Good post.
 
Psychopathology. These people have a mental illness. They believe they are superior, even to other ultra-rich people.
There are studies that show those who are ultra-rich will act in ways different to the "common" folk, believing they "deserve" what they have and more so. One example is a bowl of candies. When it is believed they are unobserved poor people will take one, but the very wealthy are more likely to take more than one. And it covers the whole political spectrum, left to right.
Epstein and his friends used people not just because they could, but because they believed they deserved it, they've "earned" the right to act outside the laws, and their wealth and privilege are entirely of their own making.
 
[...] There are studies that show those who are ultra-rich will act in ways different to the "common" folk, believing they "deserve" what they have and more so. [...]
What I object to is our society, and others, playing up to this assumed 'difference'.
Our politicians, who hold power over everyone's day-to-day existence, have not all got there by merit. Fair play - some do. They've worked hard, 'bucked the system', got their job by themselves. But there y'go - they've 'bucked the system'.
It's human nature to judge by immediate visual signals. So if someone has a more expensive suit than you, sounds posh and you've been told they are 'right' then we tend to be subservient. But on further analysis, it all falls apart.
You are expected to accept value from others.
Frankly, I wouldn't recognise an 'expensive' suit from ... er ... a business suit. We're told it's an 'expensive' suit.
I come from a working class background but went to a multicultural (and expensive) private boarding school where my own accent (to my family) became posh but (to others) still had the sahf London twang. If I concentrate I can easily put on a 'posh accent' and my interest in the English language makes it really easy to use 'the right phrases' to appeal to different demographics. I own a shop and interact with many folks ... you'd be amazed how useful this is! Bottom line, though, is that a public school accent indicates intelligence and being in the upper classes.
Finally, the Old Boys Network never went away.
The UK class system never went away.
If you are told "Hello, I employ you in the firm that my father owns, and I am telling you that this chap is great!", you tend not to disagree. In theory you can but you do understand that you can be sacked. (Don't get me started on employment laws!)
The sum is that you get a rich berk (who may in himself be a nice guy) be sent to Eton (a given) then University to study political economics and philosophy (always good to teach you how to argue unprovable assertions) to become a politician for his Dad's party ('cause who d'you think paid for his breeding?) and get to be Health Secretary just because you voted for Brexit when all your chums did?

And we find it hard to understand the concept of meritocracy?
You'd rather employ someone on the grounds that he speaks posh, smells nice and his Dad says he should tell you what to do?
 
Last edited:
There are studies that show those who are ultra-rich will act in ways different to the "common" folk, believing they "deserve" what they have and more so. One example is a bowl of candies. When it is believed they are unobserved poor people will take one, but the very wealthy are more likely to take more than one. And it covers the whole political spectrum, left to right.
Epstein and his friends used people not just because they could, but because they believed they deserved it, they've "earned" the right to act outside the laws, and their wealth and privilege are entirely of their own making.
It's about time the reverence shown to the rich and famous came to an end. Sadly these characters are seen as some sort of role model to some people, despite the revelations that continue to emerge about their characters.
And giving knighthoods to people who invent ludicrously expensive hoovers, people who can peddle their bicycle faster than their mates, those who can work out how to eliminate enemies better than others and all their ilk should be abolished.
 
It's about time the reverence shown to the rich and famous came to an end. Sadly these characters are seen as some sort of role model to some people, despite the revelations that continue to emerge about their characters.
And giving knighthoods to people who invent ludicrously expensive hoovers, people who can peddle their bicycle faster than their mates, those who can work out how to eliminate enemies better than others and all their ilk should be abolished.

Not sure I agree with all those points.
Plenty of sportsmen and women, inventors, entrepreneurs etc. have benefited society in very positive ways and I don't begrudge them getting some recognition.
 
I don't begrudge Sir Ian Botham being made a lord.
You know I'm a huge cricket fan and he was always my greatest hero of God's own game.
 
And giving knighthoods to people who invent ludicrously expensive hoovers, people who can peddle their bicycle faster than their mates, those who can work out how to eliminate enemies better than others and all their ilk should be abolished.
I think we all need something to aspire to, to make us strive for excellence.
That said, honours are now being handed out like Smarties, to a few people who don't deserve it (this is in the eye of the beholder).
 
I think we all need something to aspire to, to make us strive for excellence.
That said, honours are now being handed out like Smarties, to a few people who don't deserve it (this is in the eye of the beholder).
Remember that brat Beckham not getting the list but slagging Katherine Jenkins for getting one.
 
From an economics blog commenter:

Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing politicians for Israel’s Mossad, new book claims

The deceased American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell were Israeli spies who used underage girls to blackmail politicians into giving information to Israel, according to their alleged Mossad handler.

The couple reportedly ran a “honey-trap” operation in which they provided young girls to prominent politicians from around the world for sex, and then used the incidents to blackmail them in order to attain information for Israeli intelligence.

The claims are being made by the alleged former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe in a soon-to-be-released book “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales” in which he said that he was the handler of Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell, who was also an Israeli espionage agent and was the one who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Mossad.

www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200106-jeffrey-epstein-was-blackmailing-politicians-for-israels-mossad-new-book-claims/

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...does-qanon-stand-for.html?commentID=160152927
 
*trying REALLY hard not to mention the latest round of honours*
Hang on.
These aren't the honours given out for attainment. You won top score in your sport. You raised bucket-loads of cash from your community. You have been an outstanding example of what a good person can be and you need to be rewarded for it.
The so-called Queens Honours are "proposed" by the government of the day. They tell 'Er Maj who to give a gong to. She has no choice in the matter! Boris (or more likely Cummings) writes down a list of those "worthy" of honour - usually those who've contributed to their party or need a boost in their portfolio (such as Dido Harding) - and 'er Maj' (gawd bless 'er) signs off on it. The Queen actually has no choice.
These aren't 'honours' handed out by the old duck.
These are handed out by the current government as nice little earners for lining pockets and being bastards!
 
[...]
Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing politicians for Israel’s Mossad, new book claims.
[...}
No. He was a rich pervert with rich pervert friends, and who blackmailed anyone he could to maintain his own lifestyle.
It was ultimately, like much human frailties and perversions, selfish. What he did was for himself. Because he could and he was allowed to.
If there was a political angle, it wasn't anything to to with his own politics but what he himself gained. You can't blame politics and religion on this one ... he was a disgusting individual who did what he did for himself.
 
Ghislaine Maxwell loses fight to keep her Jeffrey Epstein testimony sealed


from the Miami Herald article linked to:

"A federal appeals court dealt Ghislaine Maxwell, the alleged madam to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, twin blows late Monday by declining to consolidate her appeals in numerous overlapping cases and striking down her effort to thwart release of a controversial deposition she gave in a now-settled civil lawsuit.

The three-judge Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held more than two hours of oral arguments last week, and issued a succinct Monday afternoon order holding that a lower court judge did not err in ordering the release of a 418-page deposition from April 2016 that could shed new light on the Epstein empire.

“We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell on appeal and find them to be without merit,” the judges wrote, also turning away a request for consolidation with Maxwell’s criminal case in the Southern District of New York. “We DENY the motion to consolidate this appeal with the pending appeal in United States v. Maxwell.”"
 
No. He was a rich pervert with rich pervert friends, and who blackmailed anyone he could to maintain his own lifestyle.
It was ultimately, like much human frailties and perversions, selfish. What he did was for himself. Because he could and he was allowed to.
If there was a political angle, it wasn't anything to to with his own politics but what he himself gained. You can't blame politics and religion on this one ... he was a disgusting individual who did what he did for himself.
Also, he was not politically or otherwise important in himself. He was expendable.
 
Just to remind everyone:

a) Epstein is dead, and can never be tried over any allegations.

b) He had one, 12-year old, conviction for using a 14-year old prostitute, for which he served 12 months in custody.

c) The case against him was dismissed on 29.8.20

d) To reuse a quote l posted on the Jimmy Savile thread, “The plural of allegation is not data.

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Back
Top