Jeffrey Epstein: Difference between revisions

Jeffrey Epstein (edit)

Revision as of 21:50, 11 July 2025

4,440 bytes added , 11 July 2025

→‎On X

Pyrope

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors

6,894

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == On X ==
+{{Tweet
+|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
+|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1215348170600763392
+|name=Eric Weinstein
+|content=My simple take on conspiracies: Looking at the @AndrewYang @MSNBC series, it‘s clear that this is not a repeating accident. However what we’re really worrying about is this. What happens if we start to acknowledge these cryptic power moves? Does the world become Qanon & InfoWars?
+If we teach COINTELPRO do we start believing in Reptilians? If we acknowledge the Powell Memo, do we believe in Illuminati next? Does questioning Epstein’s death and any connection of his to intelligence communities legitimize all of Pizzagate? Does Jean Seberg destroy all news?
+Does our suspicion that the Warren Report was used to silence questions around JFK open up the idea that our government is illegitimate when it releases findings?
+Sadly, the answer is that we’re falling into 3 types. Conspiracy deniers, Conspiracy nuts & a tiny third group.
+The deniers fear legitimizing deep questions & concern about ground truth, interests, power, leverage, cryptic organizations, etc. Better to avoid the slippery slope without near certain evidence they say.
+Nuts want hidden order everywhere. They want to be in on a secret world.
+The third group (mine) has had it with both of these groups. We know enough to discuss Type I vs Type II error. We don’t know what’s going on most of the time so the nutters make us crazy. We also don’t believe that Jeffrey Epstein’s coverage is normal. We can map irregularity.
+We also know we can be wrong & don’t think that makes us nutters or dupes. It’s Type I vs Type II error & we refuse to get all weird because it involves conspiracies. This is a normal thing to think about unless you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the history of proven conspiracy!
+Two of the most important issues at the moment in this space are about the news:
+A) What is the explanation for the bizarre coverage of Jeffrey Epstein?
+B) What is the explanation for the bizarre coverage every 4 years of popular candidates outside the system gaining traction?
+We know enough to know that something is wildly off in both cases but we don’t know exactly what. That makes both the Nutters & the deniers extremely uncomfortable with us. We may be near certain something is off like nutters but reject detailed theories w/o proof like deniers.
+My conclusion is simple: consider joining us. If you’ve outgrown radical pro-life v pro-choice. If you‘re too smart for pure capitalism vs communism. If you can’t get the old camps to work for you, consider taking Type I vs II approach to conspiracies. As you would anything else.
+|timestamp=11:02 AM · Jan 9, 2020
+}}
+{{Tweet
+|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
+|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1193563095014076416
+|name=Eric Weinstein
+|content=I think folks aren’t getting at all what I’m saying. I don’t disagree that Epstein was a sociopath. That *was* my read of him. But there was a 2nd layer. A role,mission or job. The two were in conflict. The sociopath just wasn’t focused enough on science/trading to play the role. https://t.co/2xMDu6IeIL
+For 15 Yrs starting before his Florida conviction, I’ve said that Epstein was a “construct” because that sociopath could not have constructed that unnatural role by himself. My guess has been that someone/thing hired a sociopath to play a different one focused on science/trading.
+So did he fool me? Perhaps. If he has no connection to any intelligence community, he fooled me. If he really cared about science he fooled me. If he really ran a ccy trading strategy out of Villard house he fooled me. If he was a genius he fooled me. If this wasn’t kayfabe..
+But intelligence communities do create assets. They do fit them with backstories and characters to play. That is my guess here. And the role that was being played was a badly drawn Gatsby-Bond like character who would never blink. So, am I wrong? Was this bastard state-protected?
+You‘ll note that I‘m completely agnostic in this theory as to whether the underlying sociopath would commit suicide given the opportunity. Maybe! How would I know? I wouldn’t.
+What I do know is that if he was playing a role, his character as written would never commit suicide.
+What I’ve been trying to focus folks on is that there’s likely more than one layer here. There was a sick man & a separate role he wasn’t fully able to play. Poke at the role: ccy trading, Villard House, IC contacts, associates, tax evasion, etc and see it all come crashing down.
+|timestamp=8:16 AM · Nov 10, 2019
+}}
 {{Tweet
@@ Line 267: / Line 321: @@
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1193563095014076416}}
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1193563099690782720}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1195458059373404160}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1202289022782955520}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1202289024783699968}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1202289026922733568}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1207734328345542656}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1212785538098286592}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1212785541692805120}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1212785542716248064}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1212785548642832384}}
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1215348171280224256}}
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1215348187411578880}}
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1215348190322417664}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1215648517005312001}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1215648519375081472}}