fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed
Someone’s probably already said this but Manufacturing the Age of Consent
When I want to transfer money between bank accounts, I either use my bank's website or go there and ask the first employee I see. They even have specific account managers that I can talk to on a walk-in basis. At no point am I like "wow this is complex. Wish I had a CIA paedophile to help me push three buttons."
There are various fees and regulations involved in the US for transferring anything above $10,000. You and I are normal people, so we've never had to worry about taxes involved in large money transfers. It sounds like Epstein was helping Chomsky avoid IRS attention.
No there aren't, at least when transferring your own money between your own accounts.
IIRC Epstein's cover story was that he was a hedge fund manager, so if we assume the best about :chompsky: then we could say that he simply thought he was depositing and withdrawing money from the account Epstein managed. Of course you don't have to assume the best...
the black book revelations are years old, this news cycle was new names. chomsky had not been linked to epstein before nor had burns or that lawyer Kathleen somethignorother
I think most people are expecting a higher moral standard from someone who claims to be a leftist than they do from the Clintons.
It's already established in Clinton's case because he was in the black book (along with many others). Pretty much anyone in the black book is a pedo unless proven otherwise.
That's not true really. Wasn't the black book just a list of contacts? Lots of people in the book had never even been in proper contact with him.
I thought in the Lore that the black book referred to people who were internally recorded in the flight log as traveling on the Lolita Express
I think the flight logs are simply the flight logs and a separate thing(though obvious overlap exists I imagine).
The black book is a literal black book with names and phone numbers in it that supposedly doesn't have an exact clear single purpose except to have names and phone numbers written in it. People who have their names there claim to have never met Epstein directly or had indirect contact with him, for what that kind of denial is worth.
Is the suggestion here that what they are reporting on did not occur? What would be "not buying into it"?
That he's a salaried agent or whatever is hyperbole, but the idea that he ultimately has served a propaganda purpose as the furthest acceptable left position in the US is something that predates the Epstein connections being revealed.
Plus that doesn't really change the fact that this is a new step in a series of escalating documented Chomsky and Epstein connections that have been revealed and that Chomsky has downplayed angrily when questioned about, the pattern suggests this probably isnt the full extent either.
Wether or not the WSJ is reporting on this as a way to attack the left, what would "not buying into it" mean in this case except to question or disprove the connections(something Chomsky himself has not convincingly done)? Can't exactly honestly suggest it should be ignored.
When questioned about it he said some shit about how "Epstein paid his time and we live in a free society so that's good enough. Like WTF
Ok but that's a teensy bit different from
fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed fed
It is, but someone yelling fed over and over as a probable joke isnt a reason to start scolding people for "buying into" this reporting as some sort of attack on leftists.
No I think it is. I've seen this shit play out too many times. In six months people are going to call manufacturing consent a psyop because all they know about what happened is "chomsky fed"
So whats the response here that is "not buying into" the WSJ reporting on financial connections between Chomsky and Epstein that Chomsky has attempted to conceal?
I think its more than a little weird to be more annoyed that someone would call Chomsky a fed over this rather than someone accusing people of "buying into" Chomsky having personal and financial connections to literally Jeffrey Epstein.
It's not "fed fed fed fed . . ."
Personally, I think all of this is an interesting window into how Epstein operated, built a vast network, ingratiated himself to people, and made sure to do favors and have dirt. But that's about all I can really say from what's there so far.
I think that's taking it very easy on Chomsky, since this isn't the first thing to have been revealed about him and Epstein, and at every step of the way he's deflected, downplayed and denied further connections.
He should be very aware of how having any connection to Epstein looks in his position, and if it really is incidental stuff that comes with being in those circles, then detailing it is really the only way to clear himself. And people clearly have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why would a book that is used to steer people away from opposition to US hegemony be likely to be consodered a psyop?
:hahaha:
whilst gnomes seminal work is useful in deciphering US propaganda, he is on a similar level to adam curtis in regards to what is acceptable within the overton window
he's probably not a fed, but this type of behaviour shows that he has more in common with the upper levels of society than the downtrodden
He said Epstein helped him organize a talk with Ehud Barak, feels pretty fed adjacent at least
"now"? People have been discussing Chomsky being potentially a fed or an asset long before the Epstein link. not saying it's true but it's plausible.
In response to questions from the Journal, Chomsky confirmed that he received a March 2018 transfer of roughly $270,000 from an Epstein-linked account. He said it was “restricted to rearrangement of my own funds, and did not involve one penny from Epstein.”
Chomsky explained that he asked Epstein for help with a “technical matter” that he said involved the disbursement of common funds related to his first marriage.
“My late wife died 15 years ago after a long illness. We paid no attention to financial issues,” he said in an email that cc’d his current wife. “We asked Epstein for advice. The simplest way seemed to be to transfer funds from one account in my name to another, by way of his office.”
Chomsky said he didn’t hire Epstein. “It was a simple, quick, transfer of funds,” he said.
When initially asked about his relationship with Epstein, Chomsky had told the Journal, “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally.”
At best this is the story about an elite "anarchist" who is asking his oligarch friend for help gaming the financial system.
Like all Libertarians - whether Socialist or Capitalist - Chomsky's biggest criticism of the Soviet Union is that he would've been executed for being a child diddler.
