It's Not MY Opinion, It's A Fact That The "TERFS" Are Making Common Cause With The Worst Of The Republican-fascists

CONSIDERING HOW CHOOSY such "Trans exclusionary radical feminists" choose to be when it comes to who can use public rest rooms and other public accommodations,  they're remarkably enthusiastic about making common cause with the absolute worst of anti-Women, racist fascists.  Here is  what a short article from a long-time feminist and LGBTQ+ rights activist,  Sukey Wolf, says about that. 

Dancing with the right wing. 

These days there is a serious development that has taken the controversy in a dangerous new direction. Right-wing Republican politicians have decided to go after trans rights across the country.
This puts TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) in a position where their beliefs are in alignment with the extremists. In fact, Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank, put on a forum in January 2019 with panelists from WoLF, Women’s Liberation Front, a self-described radical feminist group that argues that biology is destiny.

I asked a friend, who is against inclusion, about what is to me the great contradiction of being a lesbian willing to team up with an outfit dedicated to the oppression of women and other groups. She said the TERFs have to take advantage of every opportunity to share their viewpoint and she didn’t have much of a problem with such allies.

I find this sort of complacency alarming, to say the least. What the anti-trans folks don’t see is that once the right finishes driving trans people back into the closet they will come for gays and lesbians. There is already talk of overturning gay marriage. So teaming up with the Heritage Foundation to push an anti-trans agenda just doesn’t make sense.

Feminism that does not include trans women is not feminism at all. When I was starting out as a gay movement activist, one of our demands was sexual freedom, the ability to express one’s sexuality in whatever way one chooses. I’ve always felt that since I wanted the right to be a lesbian, I needed to extend the right of self-determination to others, including transgender people.

Not only that. Trans women are human beings. As such we should support them and stand in solidarity with them. As long as a person lives as a woman and is subject to male violence (the murder rate for transgender women is much higher than in the general population) I support her as a woman. Feminism is about equality and inclusion. To oppose that is cooperating with the enemy.

As far as I'm concerned any group and the individuals in it who made common cause with  Heritage Foundation in 2019 are in the same category as those who made common cause with the KKK in 1919.  Or the German American Bund in 1939.  And their willingness to make that common cause with a millionaire-billionaire fascism promoting group is a good indication as to the nature of their issue,  opposition to the rights of Transsexuals.    I have always considered the Log Cabin Republicans,  originally the right-wing gay men's little club to promote the Republican Party to be worse than traitors,  I called them the "Uncle Tom's Cabin Club."   At first they made some "principled" stands such as to not endorse presidential candidates who work to oppress gay men and lesbians  (not being much bothered by the racism and sexism of their party) but now they're total Republican-fascists making common cause with Trump,   "TERFs" a term of the kind I'm generally reluctant to adopt but who I don't care if they're offended anymore,  are allies of the Heritage Foundation, what more does anyone need to know about what their real character, or lack of it, is?    I more regret that I called them "radical feminists" because they're futile as "radicals" who will never produce any progress towards equality and economic justice and making common cause with one of the most powerful anti-Women fascist groups in the country,  they don't deserve to be called to be feminists.   They're just another species of anti-equality assholes.  

Trump: Don’t call Medgar Evers assassin a racist

 

The racist scum like Doug Burgum, sec of the Interior,  that pervades Trump II should never be allowed to escape their actions in promoting racism by dishonoring the memory of those like Medgar Evers who were everything heroic and admirable in American history as the likes of Trump and those he holds up as heroes like Byron de la Beckwith are the worst of us.   White supremacy is America's indigenous, long powerful and still powerful and in power form of fascism.  No one who is a Republican in 2026 cannot be said to not be a supporter of this racist fascism.  

LEVEL BILLIONAIRES LIKE BURGUM OUT OF EXISTENCE, THEY, IN CONCERT WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS ARE THE GREATEST DANGER TO AMERICANS AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY JUST AS THE SLAVE POWER WAS. 

Hate Mail - Pedo-Supporter Says What?

YES,  I VOTED FOR GEORGE MITCHELL TWICE when he was running for the Senate,  as I recall I didn't vote for him to be the Democratic nominee for governor, when he got the nomination and lost to the putrid James Longley (who ran as an independent) but for Joe Brennan who later served as governor of Maine.   The first time I voted for him for Senate, his opponent was David Emery who was a right wing idiot (I think it was Jack Anderson who said he was the "dimmest bulb" in the House), the second time he ran against the anti-choice, crypto-fascist, queer-bashing-evangelical Jasper Wyman.   

George Mitchell left elected office in 1995, when he was the Majority Leader in the Senate,  his term as majority leader was hardly a glorious period,  I sent several letters critical of him and his tenure as leader of the Democrats,  it was not the lowest point of a Democratic majority in the Senate but I predicted, correctly, as it turned out, that his term would lead to the loss of the Senate. 

I respected his role in brokering the peace in Northern Ireland as Bill Clinton's representative in those talks but I didn't hold him in high esteem.   Among the things I held against him was his refusal to help Maine entities when he was at the height of his power in the Senate,  it was well known among those in the non-profit area and among many who were reliant on federal money that you couldn't count on Mitchell or his office being much help to you.   I can't recall if it was he or one of his staffers who told a scientist I knew that "he didn't see it as his role to do that,"  while holding office TO REPRESENT MAINE.    I'll point out that, like Ed Muskie, he didn't mind having his name on things but you shouldn't expect to get much in the way of financial support from him.  

Anyway,  all that happened well before he is documented to have ever heard of Jeffrey Epstein, the earliest so far documented connection between them comes from 2003, well after he was an elected official from Maine,  twenty-one years after I first and about fifteen years after the last time I voted for him.  So far we don't know if he was involved with the rape of underage girls or not, though I can't believe he didn't smell the stench of Epstein.   

So, there's no evidence that "I voted for a pedophile."  Unlike you who certainly voted for one the year before last knowing full well he was a sex criminal. 

Questions About The Anti-Trans Minority Of Radical Feminists

DURING MY RECENT illness which is lingering like it's a new way of life, for me, I started looking at ancient LGBTQ+ history I remembered and somewhat earlier  Including seeing what I could see about the sadly lost Lesbian organization,  the Daughters of Bilitis.  There is something that saddens me about their too early demise.   Maybe someday I'll write about that.

Before going on I will come out and say I am an LGBTQ+ Person and I consider a wrong to one of us is a wrong to me,  even if I can't claim to speak for all of us.  Writing against those wrongs is a moral obligation I take seriously. 

That reading mentioned above, in a long chain of followed links,  led me to the generally viciously anti-trans ideology of some, hardly all, of Women who identify as "radical feminists."  From what I can see those radical feminists who are furious about Trans Women who identify as Women, center their anger on their assumption that those assigned male gender at birth cannot possibly have suffered the kind of discrimination and pain that those assigned female gender have suffered.  

Which strikes me as a rather odd criterion to base such a choice on.  While I wouldn't presume to tell any Women, and I will include TransWomen in this statement what to think, my first question is:

1. How does anyone know that either in the reality of any individual person's life experience, which is real, or in the entirely imaginary and artificial fiction of any group's experience?   People experience pain,  groups are imaginary constructs, they don't experience anything, the individuals placed into groups do.   AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT IS A REAL QUESTION, AND ONE WHICH I'M SURE WILL NOT HAVE ANY UNIVERSALLY AGREED TO ANSWER. And, if that's the determining criterion, how do you measure it?  It's a question that certainly has figured in the history of the feminist movement, in general, whether first or second wave or in whatever wave feminism is in now.  

Black Women certainly pointed out that White Women, in general, had an importantly different experience than that of Women who had been doubly targeted for discrimination and violence due to their gender and their race.  Women who grew up in poverty, in destitution, among the working poor certainly had different experiences than those who grew up with a very significant differential in experiencing pain, rivaling those of gender and race, affluence and even great wealth.  

In all of those importantly different ranges of experience there are certainly commonalities, a wealthy white woman who grew up in great wealth was still subject to legal discrimination against women, could be crushed in spirit and soul by the role they were expected to play, THEY COULD CERTAINLY BE THE SUBJECT OF VIOLENCE INCLUDING DEADLY VIOLENCE THAT IS PANDEMIC - Women are still murdered every single day due to their being Women in exactly the same way that People of Color are murdered every day because of that fact. I've controversially called that the most significant lynching campaign that never ended, one which makes women live under a reign of terror so pervasive many don't even notice it.  I'm sure that many Women would deny that's the case, especially those living according to traditional gender roles.  And here I will note that TransWomen of Color have one of the highest murder rates and other experiences of violence and discrimination in the country.  

I would never, ever claim that there was any such a thing as a uniform experience of being a Gay Man,  I've certainly and repeatedly condemned many a Republican-fascist or affluent faggot who made common cause with the fascists,  I did just the other day.  

I have to wonder if the idea that such assumptions could be made and uniformly asserted about the experience of TransWomen and those assigned female identity at birth is a product of the pseudo-sciences of sociology, anthropology and psychology which create such non-existent abstract "persons" that are talked about in such universal and reality denying ways.  The assumption of that perhaps minority of radical feminists who hate TransWomen that such false, fictitious persons are real and their make believe and imaginary "experiences" and "traits."*  I will note that one of the most vocal of the extreme anti-Transwoman voices comes from the writer of the Harry Potter books, J. K. Rowling.  Someone who created a huge number of entirely imgainary characters living in an entirely imaginary world.  I couldn't possibly know her inner mind but I have to wonder if perhaps her work habits don't inform her thinking about this issue.  I have to wonder how may Transwomen she knows or has any knowledge of.  I haven't looked but wonder if someone has asked her about the surprisingly large number of People born without a standard set of genitals whose gender assignment was arbitrary on a biological basis, often leading to conflicting experience and, yes, enormous pain for some of those PERSONS. 

2. Considering the enormous differential in the experience of pain due to apparent identity within any group, does that mean that those who experienced more pain are "more" Woman or Gay or whatever group than those who experienced little to no such pain?  Again how do you measure that?  And who gets to decide how much pain qualifies you entrance or authenticity, if that's the measure?   

I would certainly not make "pain felt," pain in childhood adolescence, adulthood such a determination among men classified as Gay.  I would certainly reject the idea that just being a Gay Man either includes or excludes any given Gay Man from the presumptions of male privilege, which is a real thing which is important but which is hardly distributed equally ANYMORE THAN THE PRIVILEGE OF AFFLUENCE IS AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE ANY MONEY.  And which is hardly guaranteed to men who are perceived to be gay or who have always been honest about being gay.  And, having lived in the same community I grew up in, IT OFTEN TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE THAT SOME OF THOSE WHO MADE OUR LIVES MOST MISERABLE TURNED OUT TO HAVE SEX WITH OTHER MEN.  I can think of several of the most straight-identifying anti-gay jerks turned out to be gay, themselves.  

All this gives me little to nothing in common with the FAGAs in Trump's cabinet or among the Tech bros or those Republican-fascists in Congress and on the Supreme Court.  We may, to my regret, get classified as having a same gender orientation but we have nothing in common apart from that.  I oppose them every chance I get and make chances when those are missing.   I certainly doubt that those who spend their lives passing as straight, white, affluent, ruling class Republican-fascists share the same level of pain due to discrimination or endangerment as a young, poor, effeminate Gay male of Color who spends time living on the street due to the discrimination against them, sometimes with the rejection of their family.  I put my lot in with the underclass, not the Republican-fascist faggots and even the wealthy Democratic ones.

3. I have absolutely no problem with anti-trans radical feminists making rules of who gets to be part of their clubs, their events, their circle but I have every problem with them making common cause with the anti-LGBTQ+ fascists in targeting the tiny number of often very young, very vulnerable Trans People for legal discrimination and pointlessly hurtful treatment.  I DON'T FOR A SECOND BELIEVE THE REPUBLICAN-FASCISTS CARE ABOUT SUCH TRANSWOMEN IN SPORTS- GOD KNOWS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN, ESPECIALLY GIRLS IN GENERAL -  THEY WANT TRANS PEOPLE  FOR THE TARGET OF THE POLITICALLY OPPORTUNISTIC HATE CAMPAIGNING, they have a group they target for fearing and hating every political season.  And any anti-trans radical feminists who make common cause with them are part of that AND THEY CAN GO TO HELL WITH THEM. 

Again, I don't think what they do privately in venues which are in no way public accommodations by way of bigotry and discrimination is the business of anyone else. Though it is fairly considered open for commentary.  That commentary will be made, in any case.   

I don't know why TransWomen would want to have anything to do with them anymore than LGBTQ+ People would want to pay those who hate us for making a cake,  though if it's a business the issue of public accommodation makes that fair for action.   I doubt their politics will ever amount to anything except helping the fascists.  Seeing the total nut-job Ti-Grace Atkinson (Good Lord, is she still alive?) being among the names I recognized among them did nothing to dissuade me of that suspicion.  I remember reading her scribblage in the early 1970s or late 60s and realizing she was a total waste of eyesight because there was absolutely no way she would ever accomplish anything except impeding any group she was involved with.  Luckily, she faded into total obscurity only to recently rise from the crypt. 

I think many of the ideas and goals of radical feminism are extremely important and valuable and have since the late 1960s when such Women started writing and speaking in public.   I have repeatedly written about my agreement with some of the most vilified of them, especially around the issue of pornography.   I doubt that the anti-Trans minority among them will contribute anything to making real change for the better in real lives,  though they may make some Trans People's lives more painful and worse.  They are like the pointless play-lefties whose only accomplishment was to thwart real progress.   The irony of that is that THEY ARE INFLICTING THE SAME KIND OF PAIN ON TRANS WOMEN THAT THEY CONSIDER THE CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY OF MEMBERSHIP IN THEIR GENDER.   They are become what they claim to exist to fight against.  Only not for "their people."  No wonder they're making common cause with the Republican-fascists. 

* Which risks me getting into the foremost creators of such imaginary and abstract,  sometimes entirely unevidenced creatures, those who believe in natural selection, Darwinism.  Which I will be writing about again in the near future. 

Instead Of Wringing Hands Over Bezos Liquidating The Wa Po, Listen To These Now Free, Formerly Cabloid Journalists On The Emerging New Media

ONE OF THE EARLY THINGS that became apparent to me when I first went online was that the ink on paper media, certainly the big papers, were going to disappear because the overhead of producing their product and distributing it would make it very unlikely for it to continue.   I'd come off of the experience of two excellent newspapers I read,  The Boston Globe and the York County Coast Star (which was recognized as one of the best small weekly papers in the country) being bought and gutted by the New York Times.   I had watched other newspapers I read disappear for my entire lifetime, national, regional and local ones as news reading diminished.  

I have a full copy of one of those local papers from the 1950s, one from a random day that someone put in a drawer for some reason and which didn't come my way till the chest of drawers was junked and obtained by me.   It is a broadsheet of the kind you hardly ever see anymore, with full sections most of which are actual news full of local ads.  And it was hardly the best newspaper of my experience.  But today's Boston Globe,  hell, the one that the NYT put out before they dumped it  couldn't compare with it. 

I have heard that some of the small local papers, especially those to a targeted, often ethnic audience are still doing all right, though I certainly haven't seen that to be the case in person.  I will point out not long ago hearing the editor of such a paper derisively dismissing the New York Times as a gaming company that had something of a news operation on the side.  which makes me smile every time I hear of what the Sulzberger jerk who runs it is doing.  Probably the worst thing that could happen to a newspaper is that a billionaire like Bezos or Soon-Shiong or the scion of a multi-millionaire owner family like "putsch" Sulzberger gets control of it.   Bad as the NYT could be under previous members of his family,  the post-boomer (born 1980) A.G. has brought it to lows I don't remember even at its previous worst of my lifetime.  I mean, look at the shit like Whorey Beiss who were hired under him.  I can't but help thinking his education at the atheist prep, "Ethical Culture" school had something to do with his moral  degeneracy, 

The idea that the big papers would continue as before only online, without the cost of newsprint and distribution "IF ONLY THEY COULD FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT BUSINESS MODEL" seems to have been mostly a fantasy.    

I don't figure that any corporation is worth mourning when it has died a natural death,  nor even as it was murdered like the WaPo has been.   I say move on with history and historical inevitability driven in no small part by changes in technology.   Ink on paper newspapers are, themselves, the product of technological developments as were the consolidations that created the big corporations that ran them into the ground.  If we're going to have a democracy supporting news media it's not likely to be ink on paper or with a big corporate overhead and overlord class.  

Here are Joy Reid, Mehdi Hassen and Jim Acosta talking about such things and taking audience questions in one of the best such discussions on this I've heard. 

OH, AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE BOYCOTTING AMAZON AND THE OTHER BEZOS COMPANIES.    Hey, Duncan, are you still on the Amazon teat?   Maybe you should be boycotted, too. 

The Roberts Court Is The Most Corrupt Of The Many Corrupt Courts In Our History

JOHN ROBERTS STEERED THE SUPREME COURT into the infamous and disastrous 6-3,  all Republican-fascist decision that made Donald Trump the out of control despot he has been for the past year as internal memos that were leaked last year proved.   HE had the greatest role in overturning lower court rulings that didn't favor Trump and his criminality and, especially through the infamous Roberts Court shadow docket decision making by allowing corrupt lower court rulings to stand (as I recall those favored Trump in well over 80% of the cases) and in paving the way for the insane, certainly anti-"originalist" anti-"textualist"  Trump v USA decision that made the United States president into a monarch who was above the law.    The expected resistance of the Roberts Court to his attempted takeover of the Federal Reserve won't be them breaking that record,  it will just mean that the "justices" are afraid of what such a financial catastrophe will mean for what they value most THEIR OWN WEALTH.  

Roberts certainly rules over the most overtly corrupt court in modern history,  though those which sat during the period of legal slavery are the ones which may arguably endanger his Court's record as most corrupt of all time.   The scandals of Thomas, Alito and, lest anyone forget,  the Roberts combined family,  in quid-pro-quo corruption of taking gifts and payments from those with business before their Court, the scandalous cover-up of Brett Kavanaugh's sex crimes and scandals in concert with the Trump I DoJ and Senate Judiciary Committee under Grassley,  the draft decision leak in the Dobbs ruling - WHICH IT IS CERTAIN CAME FROM ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE COURT, MOST LIKELY FROM ALITO'S CAMP and many another of the known corruptions are certainly part of that.

The refusal of Roberts and his colleagues to submit themselves to any mandatory ethics rules such as the other branches are supposed to be subject to is certainly a huge, self-allowed AND OBVIOUS corruption.   As Senator Whitehouse has noted, among the judges in the federal system,  there are mandatory and binding ethics rules EXCEPT IN THE HIGHEST AND MOST POWERFUL COURT.    That alone marks it as the most corrupt part of the federal government.  

Now we find out that Roberts has demanded that all employees of the Court sign legally binding non-disclosure agreements in a attempt to make sure that the leaks and revelations that have revealed the Roberts Court as the most corrupt in modern times don't continue so the unelected and anti-democratic "justices" can carry on their grift, graft and corruptions without the public seeing what they're up to as they continue to sell their decisions to billionaires, millionaires and the members of their party,  destroying American democracy.  

If, by some miraculous intervention, Democrats have the power to reign in the Court, EXPOSE ITS PRESENT AND PAST CORRUPTIONS and reform the goddamned corrupt cesspool they have to end the Roberts Court corrupt, Republican-fascist majority AND REFORM IT TO MAKE IT ANSWERABLE TO ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWS.   They have to start by nullifying the Marbury power grab in which the Court gave itself the power to nullify duly adopted federal laws.  It was by that power that  Courts from the 1970s on have guaranteed the corruption of billionaire and millionaire money in our politics NOT LEAST IN THE STAFFING OF THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF.   Those past "justices" of an alleged librealish bent who enabled that money corruption by defining it a "speech" and such entities as the ACLU prove that lawyers, judges and "justices" are either too stupid or corrupt to understand that what they did led us here.   That is apart from the "justices" such as Rehnquist and Powell, Thomas, Roberts and Alito whose program was, exactly to lead us to this state of anti-democratic corruption.   Nina Totenberg probably wouldn't tell you that but I just did. 

I have come to believe that it is the lawyers among the lawmakers who are the weak link in Democratic politics because that profession, trained in the art of lying and deception, rewarded for being the most effective liars and deceivers and being, by and large, damned cowards and ass-coverers probably will get the fantods about any proposal to clean up the stinking cesspool and protecting democracy.   

I'd go so far as to think that having lawyers, with only a few exceptions, as leaders in the House or Senate or as president is probably a mistake.   Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and even Joe Biden (who I would put in a class far higher than the other two) were all lawyers.   I think Biden's biggest mistake in domestic policy was his appointment of Merrick Garland - one of the most disastrously cowardly of lawyers of significance to American history.   I want a hard-eyed, realistic and angry, reforming cynic about "the law" and, especially "The Court" as president and leading the Democrats in Congress.   We have yet another corrupt and cynical president who has staffed the entire government with other corrupt cynics, certainly the lawyers among them as well as shit like Patel.  Every Republican president since Nixon would count as that.   Democrats going all Ken Burns and Aaron Sorkin about such things is chicken shit.   

I admired Michelle Obama a lot more than her husband but I disagree with her.  It's not a question of when,  THEY WILL GO LOW, THAT IS A GUARANTEE,  AND LOWER THAN YOU THINK POSSIBLE.   SO WE HAVE TO BURY THEM AND DESTROY THEM AND WE HAVE TO DESTROY THE SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY ALLOWED THEM TO GAIN POWER IT GREASED THE WAY FOR IT.    To hell with that "going high" STUFF.  Merrick Garland would,  I'm sure, sell his term as Attorney General as "going high."  It might get him a pat on his back, by himself or by other lawyers,  it got us Trump II and all the horrors of AND THE MOST CORRUPT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN OUR HISTORY.    

The goddamned system, the goddamned law is only good in so far as it produces good for The People on an equal basis.   Measured in those terms,  ours is a complete flop.  It is the long established custom of the academic, legal and cultural gatekeepers to lie that the little sparks of light that occasionally appear in the mire are proof that "the system works."  No, that's just a transitory gleam on the surface of the shit that it is under which all hard won progress against it is turned back by the Court, by the media.  EVERYTHING THAT TRUMP II DOES, EVERYTHING THAT TRUMP I DID THAT WAS NOT STOPPED, WHETHER BY THE COURTS OR BY THE CONGRESS IS THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAW AND THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.   Everything else is just civics textbook bullshit.    If ours worked it's not the occasional spark that would be held up like a penlight in interstellar space,  it would be so blazing light that you'd have to look for the crap to study that as an anomaly. 

While Concentrating On The Irrelevant No One Is Asking The Real Question About The Motives And Foundation Of The Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner Child Rape Ring

SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS someone was asking why Jews have not more roundly condemned the many Jewish individuals who were part of the Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner child trafficking ring (Epstein's scummy sugar-daddy should always be mentioned along with them)  and roundly disavowed any and all of them.    And, mentioned in the comment as well, were other  recent incidents such as the Alexander brothers in Florida,  the Tom Alexandrovich case in Nevada 

I asked if they knew it was a fact that such articles weren't being written,  I'd be surprised if they hadn't been though I have not had the time to look for them in refutation.  If you can point me to them,  I'll do an update below 

But I could ask the same thing about the fact that almost all of those involved were white males who comprise an even larger percentage of those involved , AND, WHILE WE'RE AT THAT,  MAKE THAT RICH, STRAIGHT WHITE MALES more about which in a minute.   I don't know of any of the names mentioned in the files who were working class or poor.    I will also mention that's something they share with so many others like the manosophere rapist Tate bros.  

I have a Black friend who can be counted on to repeatedly say whenever a Black person got into trouble that it would be made to reflect badly on all Black People and the same is true for other groups,  Italians,  Irish (like the Winter Hill Gang), Catholics (the pedophile priests, the "trad" caths), gay men, etc.   It's a bad habit of thought that is all too prominent in the human species to blame the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.   I will note that it is Nazi thinking, white supremacist thinking, fascist thinking,  the common language of the American right.   We should all consciously refuse to think like Nazis and white supremacists (our own equivalent to Nazis) think. 

I will also note, though, that how ethnicity figured into the thinking of Epstein, Maxwell, Wexner, the Alexander brothers, Alexandrovich, etc.  can be a legitimate focus of attention IF THEIR THINKING WAS RELEVANT TO THEIR CRIMINALITY,  though that, as well only tells you about their perverted, twisted thinking as related to their crimes.  We have it on the authority of some of the victims that Epstein, Maxwell, and some of their friends such as Eileen Guggenheim were vocally racist, Jewish supremacists.   But that's the same with many an ethnicity-based crime gang, it's no surprise they'd think the same way Nazis do.   And I will mention again that such thinking is most characteristic of the cult of masculinity - maleness could very well be considered as the one certain biologically determined marker for criminal predisposition THOUGH NO ONE EVER MENTIONS THAT OBVIOUS FACT.   Ethnicity is not really a biological fact, it's more of a cultural delusion.  

I would think that such condemnation in that regard is not a moral imperative - NO ONE WHO WAS NOT PART OF SUCH A THING AND WHO CONDEMNED SUCH A THING FROM BEFORE THEY KNEW ABOUT IT HAS SUCH A MORAL OBLIGATION.   It's no more of a moral obligation of Jews to make such observations and condemnations than it is anyone else.  If anything it would be more a precautionary measure.   And, again, what can be said about Jews in that regard can be said about anyone else of any identity who match the profile of the participants in the Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner child trafficking ring. 

I do think that there is every reason to believe that in some of those things that the Israeli government, as well as the American, Russian, British, etc. governments and others knew full well about the crimes against children going on for decades.   We know that IN NO SMALL PART BECAUSE POLITICIANS, INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS AND OTHERS WERE BOTH IN THE EPSTEIN CIRCLE AND MANY OF THEM CLEARLY PART OF THE RAPE AND ABUSE.  In the case of the United States in 2026 the Trump-Bondi-Blanche DoJ is part of the cover-up I LIVE FOR THE POSSIBILITY TO SEE TODD BLANCHE IN PRISON FOR HIS PART IN THAT.   AND NOW WITH THE LATEST DUMP OF FILES WE KNOW THAT EPSTEIN AND PUTIN WERE THICK WITH THE SCUMBAG EPSTEIN BEING ONE OF PUTIN'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND EPSTEIN, AMONG OTHER THINGS PROMOTING THE PROFITS AVAILABLE FROM THE PUTIN INVASION OF UKRAINE.    The American government certainly must have been aware of that at the time,  if they didn't our spies are totally useless.   Though them knowing about it and not doing something about Epstein and his cronies may prove them even more useless for honest government and democracy.  

I have a bigger question that the one brought up above IT IS WHY MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES HAVEN'T AS A CLASS BEEN HELD UP AS BEING THE ONES WHO WERE THE CLIENTS OF EPSTEIN-MAXWELL-WEXNER, ETC.   Why haven't they as a class been held up to the kind of questioning and group-guilt mentioned above. 

I have been trying to promote the self-evident truth that along with America's indigenous fascists, the white supremacists,  the billionaires and millionaires are, actually the biggest criminal classes in American society and history.   That those are not the focus of the kind of targets vilification that ethnic groups and racial groups routinely are when they are the most dangerous and damaging  of all minority groups throughout American history is due in no small part to the fact that they control the media by owning it just as white supremacists have had a tight grip of power in many of the states and, through the corrupt anti-democratic features of the Constitution,  the national government and judicial system.  

The ethnicity of those in the Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner crime gang is nothing compared to their wealth.  Without money behind and through and from it,  they'd have been petty pimps.   IT WAS THE MONEY THAT WAS AT THE ROOT OF THEIR EVIL.  

LEVEL BILLIONAIRES OUT OF EXISTENCE, AND MILLIONAIRES TOO.   I can think of no more likely to succeed means of fighting crime than that.   But it will not be done.  It is true that there is a great crime behind every great fortune and if you can't identify it,  you can be certain that the maintenance of a fortune and its increase will be done through more crimes. 

Simps Hates It When I Diss A Hollywood Idol

and he got really pissed off that I dissed the scumbag Trump II enabling hypocrite and Murrow gang banger,   the one who bugged out to France when the shit hit the fan here,  George Clooney.

Typically, Simps comment which I've chosen not to post contains lies about what I've said in the past.  

I'm choosing to not post and answer it due to my having answered the same lies he's told going back at least nine years, probably longer - I got tired of looking at my archive to check the first occasion he did that.   I don't want to answer it yet again only to have the idiot not be able to process the arguments I made.   I've answered it over and over again, each time pointing out that I refuse to do the dishonest and idiotic thing,  choose a side between HUAC, Red Channels and Sen. Joseph McCarthy OR the Stalinists like the Hollywood 10 who - and this is probably a surprise to Simps - were not prosecuted by Joe McCarthy (who never prosecuted a case in his life) but by J. Parnell Thomas  and the House of Representatives.   I point that out because in one of my answers to him I gleefully noted that J. Parnell Thomas was prosecuted for fraud in conducting a kickback scheme and ended up serving time in the same country-club prison that some of the Hollywood 10 did their soft time in.   

I have, by the way, noted the entirely innocent victims of the red scare many times, as well. 

I also pointed out that as the lauded and celebrated Stalinists such as the Hollywood 10 are treated as as First Amendment martyrs (Most of those who do that celebrating, probably including Simps, are rather vague on the other relevant Amendments so I don't mention them in this context.)  the hero of the Hollywood 10,  Stalin, was continuing as he had all along, torturing, killing hundreds, thousands and millions, including writers and political thinkers and artists and, ironically enough,  many of his fellow Communists who he thought might be too powerful and so dangerous to his reign of terror.   It remained OK with some of them, like Lester Cole, that Stalin deprived hundreds of millions of the rights that they and their supporters complained that the Stalinists were deprived of by the cold warriors and Hollywood moguls and publishers.  

I have, also, by the way, noted that one of the earliest critics of the developing Soviet dictatorship was that other hero of such lefty stuff, Emma Goldman, though she certainly had her warts and blemishes, as well.   And that's not to mention the liberals who certainly had nothing good to say about the red scare, those who founded things like Freedom House (also at least one of the authors of The Ugly American, I forget which one) who I slammed for their support of American involvement in the Vietnam war. 

Anyway, if you're interested in what I wrote about that as opposed to what a truly stupid old man says I said about it, look up the relevant search terms in my archive.   That my thinking on it is more complicated and takes into account such things as the reality of what the persecuted commies supported such as the mass murders of Stalin and why I choose to loathe both sides of the cause celebre due to that,  you can read it there.   I don't see much of a point in going over that history again other than to correct the lies told to support one or the other side,  I'd rather concentrate on such issues among the living for whom something might be done other than make yet another movie or play about it.   You'll learn absolutely nothing important from that treatment of it,  show biz should stop fucking around with history,  they only end up lying about it and persuading the gullible, history-deficient, post-literates that their lies are true.  

George Clooney can go to hell.  

Blanche And Bondi Are Illegally Covering Up The Evidence That Trump Was An Active Part Of Epstein's Trafficking Of Minor Girls

through his "modeling" agency.  A few of them Americans, most of them foreign and many barely speaking English, without any kind of support.   Drugged, beaten, threatened with murder of them and their families.   I'll bet you anything that eventually we will find out that some of them were in fact murdered. 

Allison Gill has one of the best online news careers there are.

I am certain that U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies knew about this and some were involved with Epstein's operation,  based on who we know was involved and how many of the ultra rich, connected men were involved it is certain that even if the intelligence networks weren't part of Epstein's operation,  they had to have been spying on the men who were.   Ghiz Maxwell's father's connections to several intelligence agencies is another reason to be confident of that.