Epstein’s network was real and horrific, but the forces shaping war, empire, and capitalism run far deeper
Class conscious finally gains some traction with the broader public, and the socialist word police out here like “Stahp, you’re doing it wrong!!”
“There is no doubt that Epstein was an effective influence peddler and a ruthless manipulator. He trafficked in favours and would almost certainly have used whatever kompromat he possessed to his advantage.” … “Epstein slithered his way up to some remarkable heights but he was nowhere near setting the agenda in the corporate boardrooms and around the cabinet tables.” So which is it? Was he an expert manipulator who exerted influence on people in powerful positions globally or not?
The agenda was set by capital profitability because that’s what boardrooms and cabinets serve. Epstein was an influence peddler and manipulator within that system.
Edit: do this thought experiment. If Epstein had a “road to Damascus” conversion to anarcho-communism, could he have used his influence and position to set the agenda to …smashing capitalism?
I think I understand that the author was saying that arresting everyone involved with the epstein stuff would in no way move the world toward a more equitable socioeconomic system, and focusing on this specific situation takes away from the ‘real’ work necessary to do so. I disagree. I see the epstein situation, and the global awareness and disgust, as a crack in the capitalist system that should be exploited. progressive messaging on this situation could be more along the lines of ‘this child sex trafficking ring is not an abberation within the capitalist system, it is an inevitable feature when obscene wealth is allowed to be concentrated in the hands of a few’. From this perspective, then, using a term like ‘epstein class’ is actually a useful, albeit inaccurate, way of discussing how the socioeconomic system will enable this to happen again (and is most certainly ongoing right now) to people who generally don’t think about things in terms of ‘economic systems’.
I think I agree with you on almost everything. For me the phrase “epstein class” can only be useful as a gateway to thinking more structurally. The danger is that if people don’t move beyond it, it can reinforce the idea that the world would be a lot better if we replenished our ruling class with better people. Sort of like the “crony capitalism” line, that implicitly contains the yearning for a more “upstanding” and “fair” capitalism.
John Clarke baitline readers into not completely intersecting with the newly awaked conservatives comprehending the ruling class has duped them with a singular blackmail network.
Forgets to form the necessary steps to solidify against the colonists in Canada, and the Epstein collaborators.
i.e. not Progressive coalition: off topic essay.
Downvoters: explain.
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.
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.
- Not the person that your administration banned.
- 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?
That paragraph, above, itself simultaneously claims “There is no ‘Epstein Class.’”, and then asserts that the ruling class is what that’s talking-about.
Gaslighting.
The fact that horrors are inflicted in other contexts in no way, whatsoever negates what the ruling class deems its “entitlement” in corruption/evil.
Each mode/class/herd/kind has its own style of corruption, of disallowing-of-accountability, of DarkTriad.
The fact that other kinds exist never negated the fact that one particular kind of it exists.
You will see machiavellians push that displacement to intentionally-misframe things, consistently.
I’m not even bothering with the article: if that 1 paragraph,
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.
is representative, then they’re unworthy of engaging as honest/integrity thinking.
_ /\ _
