- Joined
- Aug 28, 2019
The New Yorker: The Darkest Thread in the Epstein E-mails (archive)
2025 Jeffrey Epstein Files
- Thread starter Osama Bin Laden
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Tin Foil Hatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2025
My brother in trolling, I understand that proper spelling is how we filter out the pajeets and the other subhumans, HOWEVER, we do not have a void-kampf test tat this time, which means misspelled words are the ONLY indication of if we are talking to a human or not. Not only is our government compromised by pedophile eugenicists, but our internet is being killed and humans are being replaced by AI. Not sure if the ai is an improvement or not though....
Tin Foil Hatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2025
You know.... If this is how the techbros think then i guess we have concrete proof that they push h1-b visas out of racism. I guest Sarkisian is correct in that everything is racist...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2023
I gave you a lunacy sticker at first, because I misread that you said our government was being replaced by AI. Sounded like Dale Gribble talk, but unironic. But our internet? You're not entirely wrong. Somehow, AI cannot directly replicate itself but it can convince thirdworlders to make SFW inflation porn of K-Pop Demon Hunters for about tree-fiddy of ad revenue.
So, the House is voting on the Epstein files' release today. What's everyone's wagers?
Last edited:
Tin Foil Hatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2025
Do you remember voat? They had these concepts called "the canary" the first was the word "nigger". You see, nigger is the ultimate naughty word. You can't say that. you get into trouble if you say that in society. So if you are in a place where you can say "nigger" but no one tries to lynch you, you are in a place where you can speak your mind. That is the first canary. The 2nd was a little thing that said " no government agency has subpoenaed us"
Before voat went under, that 2nd canary went away. We knew then that it was only a matter of time. Part of why they went under was when they connected that one web company, perfect privacy i think was the name, to mossad in the pizzagate sub. That caused a site wide ddos.
The internet isn't just dying, it's actively being killed. One of the biggest lies of the cold war is that the US wasn't a planned economy, it unfortunately is but it's corpos doing the planning. They have hijacked our laws to keep the little people from competing. Today we see how powerful the little people are because @Null 's kiwiflare is working just fine while cloudflare is locked in the cuck shed.
I am hoping the epstein files get released, and that it causes a massive schizo shit storm. You know what? maybe cloudflare didn't go down on accident, maybe they are prepping for that release....
Tin Foil Hatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2025
Yeah, i left out a key point of my post: we don't have a void kampf test, the best we have, is the word "nigger." Not because AI isn't racist, it is, it's just NOT allowed to be racist. So if they misspell words or say nigger, then they are human. That's how messed up things are now.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2022
Buying it? No. Laughing my ass off about it? Absolutely. I don't care if it's true, it's funny as fuck.
Why people are taking all this shit too seriously is a mystery to me. My position on Trump is this: aside from the fact that hero-worshipping politicians is retarded regardless of party, it doesn't actually matter either way whether you love him or loathe him - he is a lolcow, end of story. I'm here to laugh at lolcows.
Tin Foil Hatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2025
That's a fair assessment. Have you seen the prince andrew interview on epstein? probably not as it seems to have been memory holed, hard. I would argue that the crown is so evil that God himself has sent a plague of pajeets and pakis upon the british. Prince andrew WAS a huge friend of epstein and didn't cut ties and was horrified about how much the media had found out about him. Jim can't swim on youtube got nuked from orbit for covering it.
As for trump being a pedo i doubt it because the establishment would not hate him as much as they do. The best they could do on him was that pornstar lawsuit. not going to write it off but so far there hasn't been anything to convince me that he is a nonce.
As Planned
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2025
Republicans may have found a way to get Trump out of appearing in the Epstein files:
This is how @SpeakerJohnson plans to protect perverts who went to the rape island from embarrassment. Do not let the Senate add an amendment to avoid disclosing those rich and powerful men who have evaded justice for so many years. Is Johnson calling all victims “non-credible?”
View attachment 8185524
This is how @SpeakerJohnson plans to protect perverts who went to the rape island from embarrassment. Do not let the Senate add an amendment to avoid disclosing those rich and powerful men who have evaded justice for so many years. Is Johnson calling all victims “non-credible?”
View attachment 8185524
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2023
Whenever politicians push back on this specific issue with "protecting victims", justifying why they shouldn't release information on Epstein, I question their definition of victim. A 14 year old urchin girl recruited off the streets to "massage" millionaires/billionaires is absolutely a victim. A millionaire/billionaire that was being blackmailed because of evidence that he was "massaged" by 14 year old urchin girls, constantly voting against the interests of his constituents because he's a fucking pedophile caught in a trap, is not a victim, and I can't help but wonder if some politicians are trying to include "blackmail victims" under the victim umbrella.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2025
Fuck reddit and the horde of downvoting bots.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2023
I was just going to ask who it was. I would think Joe Manchin, but he's a "Democrat".
Clay Higgins needs his hard drive checked. If Trump, the main political force that was bullying representatives away from supporting this bill, gave his blessing and the bill has near unanimous support, I want to know Clay Higgins' private motivation for protecting pedophiles.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2023
nonespecified
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2022
Some innocent people are probably going to have their lives ruined if the full files are released, but I dont' believe for a second the full files will be released. This is a pressure relief valve; the senate could make changes that send it back to house for a revote, get caught up in drama, the government will need a whole team of lawyers to make sure nothing is released that is detrimental to national security, and by the time it gets dumped it'll be well past the midterms (or even past the next general election).
And even then it's going to be exactly as incriminating as the 60k worth of email dumps.
Call me a fucking negative nancy if you will. I prefer to be called Realistic Ralph, or Cynical Sue...
And even then it's going to be exactly as incriminating as the 60k worth of email dumps.
Call me a fucking negative nancy if you will. I prefer to be called Realistic Ralph, or Cynical Sue...
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
One part of my assessment relies on all the actors behaving like people would, combined with the facts as we know them.
People make the mistake of assuming those in power or of status possess capabilities beyond ordinary people. Maybe it's something natural baked into us from the era of god-kings and medieval times or something. When it's easier than ever to get into a role of authority, our assessment of individual quality ought to be scaled way the hell back. We live in a time where some guy who is nicknamed "Roach king" (Asmongold) contributes more to political discourse than most sitting congressmen.
People, regardless of their status or position in society, are limited and downright ordinary in ways that are uncomfortable for others to acknowledge. Acknowledging this makes it harder to attribute fault or blame on people you hate because of the asterisk of human limitation. The reverse is true also, since the amount of faith you put in someone is proportional to the disappointment you'll feel when they don't meet the standards you held them to, These limitations also mean that people put far too much stock in the capabilities of their "leaders" (officials in government, celebrities, etcetera) which is a big mistake of course, given we're on a website where these people (and their followers) are documented in equal measure for their general insanity. One thing people are prone to doing when the subject involves their "leader" is cope, give benefit of doubt and not assume the absolute worst case because even a remote possibility is still a remote possibility.
People will also approach situations/events from the outside looking in, but then assume that the people/parties they're looking in at share a same situational awareness as they do as an outside observer. They'll make the presumption that those involved are 100% aware of everything that's going on and know the sequence of events that'll occur before they happen, or that the people within are capable of employing foresight on how their actions will be viewed in hindsight in the future. Looking on the past with hindsight makes the events that occurred dead obvious and it becomes such a common practice that we end up assuming the hindsight views on the situation is the then-present view situation of those involved. Trying to take consideration of every possible element involved typically leaves the human element out of it because it's too reliant on guesswork and quasi-fanfiction, but at the same time that element is disregarded because we simply do not regard certain types of people by the standards and assumption we'd apply to ourselves. There are people on this site who only become people on this site because they've proven time and again that general assumptions don't apply to them given their eccentricities make them the exception, not the rule, when it comes to typical human behaviours, but I digress.
For instance in Trump's scenario, him not cutting contact in 2005 relies on him knowing Epstein was basically a pedophile and that any defence Epstein employed at the time was essentially bullshit. It relies on Epstein not trying to lie, defend, or obfuscate his actions and who he truly was behind closed doors but also that people should've been able to see through this mirage of innocence regardless. This doesn't just apply to Trump either, it applies to the lawyers, judges, investigators and politicians who gave him a pass and allowed him to get away from being labelled as a sex offender. Trying to get into the heads of the parties involved at the time, I imagine the same mistake I mentioned above (of people giving undue capabilities on high-status people) may have played a part in why people were so lenient on him. Why would a millionaire so obviously try to have sex with an under-18 year old girl and be forever tarred as a sex offender as a consequence? Maybe it was an honest to God mistake like Mr. Epstein is claiming because he has so much to lose?
Hindsight affords us that, yeah, no, it wasn't. Personally I wouldn't engage in business with someone who'd try to procure a prostitute in the first place but then again said creep wasn't my friend. If you've had a friend or family member IRL who was obviously in the wrong for something, you may think what they did was wrong but humour them in interaction, or justify/cope to yourself that what they did wasn't so bad/wrong and consider cutting them off entirely to be an overreaction. Many mothers stick by their murderer sons even they receive a guilty verdict because they don't want to assume the worst of their own flesh and blood, and even if the evidence is damning, if their son claims they didn't do it then the possibility, however desert-island-remote (or Epstein's island remote) it is, the possibility remains.
What someone's mental state was like at the time or why they decided to do the things they did from an individual perspective can only be done as a form of fanfiction, since to know that is impossible. I'm probably being too generous to Trump in the eyes of some but he strikes me as someone who'd grope a woman who was on-the-dot 18 years old rather than knowingly pursue someone who wasn't. He's also got an ego so to do something that would tar his already contentious reputation even further doesn't seem on the books. It would explain why he was quick to claim he stopped talking to Epstein around 2004 in 2019, despite evidence emerging that he most definitely did not. That's essentially one possibility for why Trump wasn't so eager to view that of Epstein at the time.
Compare that to Prince Andrew, who I not only had no idea about despite living in the UK, but whose interview with the BBC (I wouldn't say it was memory holed, just that people stopped giving a shit because it became old news) reviewed him to be a charisma vacuum with no real media experience. This is a man who said he, "didn't sweat" as he was visibly sweating. Yeah, this was someone who thought, despite being a part of the royal family, would be beneath notice. He never made big waves in the media like Harry or Meghan, wasn't as large a household name as the Queen, or Kate and William - he was just an old creep with a lot of money. Hindsight, like I mentioned before, makes this assessment easy but prior to him appearing in the news, most people would have no clue who the fuck (now formerly) "Prince" Andrew was. The closest anybody would come to being correct is the common assessment that the entire royal family are pedos, but even when that's said most people are probably thinking the big names and faces. The only reason he lasted as long as he did is, like mothers sticking by their murderer sons, I imagine his own family were probably averse to thinking of their brother/cousin/nephew/uncle/son/grandson as being a pedo until the facts became undeniable/unable to be coped about.
I know some of this sounds like an appeal to emotion, or it's some redditor-tier "have empathy" bullshit, but it's more trying to make the response/actions as mundane as possible to see whether it's more plausible in the absence of more concrete info.
People make the mistake of assuming those in power or of status possess capabilities beyond ordinary people. Maybe it's something natural baked into us from the era of god-kings and medieval times or something. When it's easier than ever to get into a role of authority, our assessment of individual quality ought to be scaled way the hell back. We live in a time where some guy who is nicknamed "Roach king" (Asmongold) contributes more to political discourse than most sitting congressmen.
People, regardless of their status or position in society, are limited and downright ordinary in ways that are uncomfortable for others to acknowledge. Acknowledging this makes it harder to attribute fault or blame on people you hate because of the asterisk of human limitation. The reverse is true also, since the amount of faith you put in someone is proportional to the disappointment you'll feel when they don't meet the standards you held them to, These limitations also mean that people put far too much stock in the capabilities of their "leaders" (officials in government, celebrities, etcetera) which is a big mistake of course, given we're on a website where these people (and their followers) are documented in equal measure for their general insanity. One thing people are prone to doing when the subject involves their "leader" is cope, give benefit of doubt and not assume the absolute worst case because even a remote possibility is still a remote possibility.
People will also approach situations/events from the outside looking in, but then assume that the people/parties they're looking in at share a same situational awareness as they do as an outside observer. They'll make the presumption that those involved are 100% aware of everything that's going on and know the sequence of events that'll occur before they happen, or that the people within are capable of employing foresight on how their actions will be viewed in hindsight in the future. Looking on the past with hindsight makes the events that occurred dead obvious and it becomes such a common practice that we end up assuming the hindsight views on the situation is the then-present view situation of those involved. Trying to take consideration of every possible element involved typically leaves the human element out of it because it's too reliant on guesswork and quasi-fanfiction, but at the same time that element is disregarded because we simply do not regard certain types of people by the standards and assumption we'd apply to ourselves. There are people on this site who only become people on this site because they've proven time and again that general assumptions don't apply to them given their eccentricities make them the exception, not the rule, when it comes to typical human behaviours, but I digress.
For instance in Trump's scenario, him not cutting contact in 2005 relies on him knowing Epstein was basically a pedophile and that any defence Epstein employed at the time was essentially bullshit. It relies on Epstein not trying to lie, defend, or obfuscate his actions and who he truly was behind closed doors but also that people should've been able to see through this mirage of innocence regardless. This doesn't just apply to Trump either, it applies to the lawyers, judges, investigators and politicians who gave him a pass and allowed him to get away from being labelled as a sex offender. Trying to get into the heads of the parties involved at the time, I imagine the same mistake I mentioned above (of people giving undue capabilities on high-status people) may have played a part in why people were so lenient on him. Why would a millionaire so obviously try to have sex with an under-18 year old girl and be forever tarred as a sex offender as a consequence? Maybe it was an honest to God mistake like Mr. Epstein is claiming because he has so much to lose?
Hindsight affords us that, yeah, no, it wasn't. Personally I wouldn't engage in business with someone who'd try to procure a prostitute in the first place but then again said creep wasn't my friend. If you've had a friend or family member IRL who was obviously in the wrong for something, you may think what they did was wrong but humour them in interaction, or justify/cope to yourself that what they did wasn't so bad/wrong and consider cutting them off entirely to be an overreaction. Many mothers stick by their murderer sons even they receive a guilty verdict because they don't want to assume the worst of their own flesh and blood, and even if the evidence is damning, if their son claims they didn't do it then the possibility, however desert-island-remote (or Epstein's island remote) it is, the possibility remains.
What someone's mental state was like at the time or why they decided to do the things they did from an individual perspective can only be done as a form of fanfiction, since to know that is impossible. I'm probably being too generous to Trump in the eyes of some but he strikes me as someone who'd grope a woman who was on-the-dot 18 years old rather than knowingly pursue someone who wasn't. He's also got an ego so to do something that would tar his already contentious reputation even further doesn't seem on the books. It would explain why he was quick to claim he stopped talking to Epstein around 2004 in 2019, despite evidence emerging that he most definitely did not. That's essentially one possibility for why Trump wasn't so eager to view that of Epstein at the time.
Compare that to Prince Andrew, who I not only had no idea about despite living in the UK, but whose interview with the BBC (I wouldn't say it was memory holed, just that people stopped giving a shit because it became old news) reviewed him to be a charisma vacuum with no real media experience. This is a man who said he, "didn't sweat" as he was visibly sweating. Yeah, this was someone who thought, despite being a part of the royal family, would be beneath notice. He never made big waves in the media like Harry or Meghan, wasn't as large a household name as the Queen, or Kate and William - he was just an old creep with a lot of money. Hindsight, like I mentioned before, makes this assessment easy but prior to him appearing in the news, most people would have no clue who the fuck (now formerly) "Prince" Andrew was. The closest anybody would come to being correct is the common assessment that the entire royal family are pedos, but even when that's said most people are probably thinking the big names and faces. The only reason he lasted as long as he did is, like mothers sticking by their murderer sons, I imagine his own family were probably averse to thinking of their brother/cousin/nephew/uncle/son/grandson as being a pedo until the facts became undeniable/unable to be coped about.
I know some of this sounds like an appeal to emotion, or it's some redditor-tier "have empathy" bullshit, but it's more trying to make the response/actions as mundane as possible to see whether it's more plausible in the absence of more concrete info.
TLDR: People ignore the human element in assessing situations they view as larger than themselves, or elevate the capabilities of people with more money and renown than themselves into near superhuman levels. Most people (not that I'm excluding myself from "most") do not consider absolutely every little thing and possibility because of the complexity involved, and we're prone to simplifying things to make it easier to understand, even if means wiping away a lot of nuance and more speculative elements (Cognitive Misers)
This takes the fun out of speculation and ragging on people for the most part because it's more fun to speculate and jeer than it is to seriously consider and ruminate on the issue, or even factor in incompetence and genuine ignorance/naivety than outright maliciousness of some parties involved. In the face of undeniable evidence then you don't need to give this leeway because some of the worst behaviours possible do not adhere to standard human behaviour. Even still, extrapolation to the most extreme conclusion needs far more supporting evidence than evidence which does prove another conclusion but is then being used to prove a different one entirely.
Apologies for my bloviating.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
Statement of fact Steven
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
Quarter Pounder insinuated that Barron Trump helped get Trump to do a U-Turn on the files being released. I don't know where he got this info from or if it's true, but big if true. I look forward to future President Barron. Just figured I'd share since it's interesting.
SBG
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2019
House has passed the Epstein release bill, with Johnson saying he hoped the senate would amend it. Thune however is saying he doesn't expect to actually do any amendments since it passed the House overwhelmingly.
Would be a gut punch to Trump if they don't redact a ton of references to him the way Johnson was hoping.
Would be a gut punch to Trump if they don't redact a ton of references to him the way Johnson was hoping.
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
His ass.
Lmao.
Considering Barron was supposedly the reason Trump went on Joe Rogan and other podcasts, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a zoomer/someone who could actually use to the internet to tell his dad that he's being a retard playing soft-defence for potential pedos/cabal of pedos just because of a few hollow platitudes about "muh victims" and now "muh new victims" (people in the files but not nonces themselves) by a bunch of gen-x/boomers who either don't realise how tone-deaf retarded their position is or are actively protecting themselves/people they know will be in the files. The media will highlight any and all mentions of Trump regardless of how incriminating they are, his own base will still laud him regardless and the people most at risk are people like that black chick who was texting with Epstein in real time whilst on that committee