There is no “Epstein Class.” We are confronting something much more powerful and dangerous than one pedophile’s debauched operation that has now been dragged into the light of day. As revealing as the conduct of the ruling class ‘at play’ may be, the horrors that are inflicted on the world during working hours claim many more victims.
Epstein’s network was real and horrific, but the forces shaping war, empire, and capitalism run far deeper
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the article is terrible. He goes on to confirm every point, then asks the reader to reject the obvious conclusion without rationale.
Do you understand the distriction he makes between the antisemitic trope of an Epstein class and the actual systemic criticism of the capitalist class?
Does he? I despise the word antisemitic, it has been murdered from constant Israeli abuse and is utterly meaningless. The author literally spells out the facts that define an Epstein class, then dismisses it as a trope without reason or justification. His attempt to point out the the bigger problem comes off as really weird shit like he can’t hold two ideas in his head simultaneously and he wants you to be inable to as well. There is a vague handwavy vibe going.
Can you explain what you understand he means by “there is no Epstein class”? Because I think we are seeing the same words and not understanding the same things.
Also, I’m frankly floored by the weird assertion that the term antisemism is meaningless. The fact that Israeli propaganda has been trying to appropriate it doesn’t negate the existence of the anti-jewish racism. A state appropriating a word for propaganda doesn’t kill of the word. Otherwise, I don’t know, “class struggle” as a concept became meaningless when Pol Pot made it meaning “kill people wearing glasses”.
I mean, if “antisemitism” is meaningless good luck understanding the play the Tucker Carlson and MTG are making.
Can you explain what you understand he means by “there is no Epstein class”? Because I think we are seeing the same words and not understanding the same things.
I’m not drunk enough for this conversation. Are you the author?
No, but I know who it is, an anti-poverty activist with like decades of grueling and unglamorous solidarity work in Toronto, a staple of basically every single social movement, including the Palestine solidarity movement. So I’m really jarred to see this super weird reaction here.
If the author comprehends the link from capitalism in Toronto oppressions, why haven’t condemned the rich people who stole indigenous land, who were indeed in the Epstein files?
I don’t understand what you mean by your point #1.
About #2, I’m actually confused about where you got that Clark isnt denouncing Canadian colonialism. That’s completely misconstruing what he’s saying. Clark denounces the ruling class in it’s totality, his whole point being that if you focus on the Epstein scandal in isolation (as the antisemitic wing of Maga would like you to do) the problem is you’re missing exactly all the other ways the ruling class (Jewish or not) is fucking us over.
Read usernames. Frame that I am not the prior person who your administration banned in this conversation earlier.
If Clarke denounces the rulers, why isn’t he also denouncing their apartheid praxis as Zionists? They seem to be doing fine apartheiding Inuit, Métis, Haida, Kwantlen, Yupik, Cree, etc…
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the article is terrible. He goes on to confirm every point, then asks the reader to reject the obvious conclusion without rationale.
Do you understand the distriction he makes between the antisemitic trope of an Epstein class and the actual systemic criticism of the capitalist class?
Does he? I despise the word antisemitic, it has been murdered from constant Israeli abuse and is utterly meaningless. The author literally spells out the facts that define an Epstein class, then dismisses it as a trope without reason or justification. His attempt to point out the the bigger problem comes off as really weird shit like he can’t hold two ideas in his head simultaneously and he wants you to be inable to as well. There is a vague handwavy vibe going.
If he had a point, he missed it.
Can you explain what you understand he means by “there is no Epstein class”? Because I think we are seeing the same words and not understanding the same things.
Also, I’m frankly floored by the weird assertion that the term antisemism is meaningless. The fact that Israeli propaganda has been trying to appropriate it doesn’t negate the existence of the anti-jewish racism. A state appropriating a word for propaganda doesn’t kill of the word. Otherwise, I don’t know, “class struggle” as a concept became meaningless when Pol Pot made it meaning “kill people wearing glasses”.
I mean, if “antisemitism” is meaningless good luck understanding the play the Tucker Carlson and MTG are making.
I’m not drunk enough for this conversation. Are you the author?
No, but I know who it is, an anti-poverty activist with like decades of grueling and unglamorous solidarity work in Toronto, a staple of basically every single social movement, including the Palestine solidarity movement. So I’m really jarred to see this super weird reaction here.
I don’t understand what you mean by your point #1.
About #2, I’m actually confused about where you got that Clark isnt denouncing Canadian colonialism. That’s completely misconstruing what he’s saying. Clark denounces the ruling class in it’s totality, his whole point being that if you focus on the Epstein scandal in isolation (as the antisemitic wing of Maga would like you to do) the problem is you’re missing exactly all the other ways the ruling class (Jewish or not) is fucking us over.
Read usernames. Frame that I am not the prior person who your administration banned in this conversation earlier.
If Clarke denounces the rulers, why isn’t he also denouncing their apartheid praxis as Zionists? They seem to be doing fine apartheiding Inuit, Métis, Haida, Kwantlen, Yupik, Cree, etc…