Epstein commits suicide in cell

[J!!]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

[ProfessorDetective]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Or terrifyingly competent at them. Big Brother's motives basically boiled down to burning all of the hope and happiness out of the human experience mostly because they could. Their methods get almost Lovecraftian in spots.

[CmdrKing]

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I think that's why people love conspiracy theories so much, particularly those concerning the Illuminati or grand government cover ups. The idea that things like this can just happen through incompetence or laziness or just straight up stupidity is just too simple or depressing. It MUST be an assassin, it MUST be more detailed, there MUST be more to it because the alternative involves admitting one of the main reasons why life is so shit: there is no plan.

In this instance it doens't particularly have to be someone killing him. Just not actively preventing it would be sufficient: he was already a suicide risk and all.

Of course, it also doesn't really have to be any outside conspirators. I mean, we're talking about a man who spent years on end head deep in sex trafficking and acts of pedophilia. Historically not remotely popular amongst corrections officers. It's not so far fetched employees on site simply conveniently had some slow shift changes and predictable intervals and let nature take its course as it were.

Or someone greased a few palms to encourage such a thing. Certainly a more plausible means of accomplishing the thing than having him killed in a direct sense.

But honestly it's kinda irrelevant. Dude was really blatant, travelled in some really powerful circles, and the sorts of acts he's been involved with are the kind that, properly proven in court, actually can fully turn people against the well connected and powerful. But the list of people who might want such a thing is so large it's pointless to speculate, especially since mundane incompetence or malicious prison guards are still very real possibilities.
To be sure a full and thorough investigation is in order, but considering that at least one person involved in that investigation has a previous history of getting Epstein off the hook for his many many crimes... not expecting a true investigation here.

[Karha of Honor]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.

Before that, no MSM mention of them.

[Robovski]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Just like an actual government! So confirmed then?

[clearspira]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.

Before that, no MSM mention of them.

Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.

Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.

This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.

And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.

[CharlesPhipps]

We have a shadow government. It's the invisible chain of money between lobbyists and governments and corporations.

It's just blindingly obvious because real secrecy doesn't exist.

[clearspira]

We have a shadow government. It's the invisible chain of money between lobbyists and governments and corporations.

It's just blindingly obvious because real secrecy doesn't exist.

Corporations run the world, this is not in question. But that really is not the same thing as there being a government beyond the government pulling the strings Metal Gear Solid style. The chain after all could be broken if the right (or wrong depending on your point of view) man got in.

[Karha of Honor]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.

Before that, no MSM mention of them.

Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.

Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.

This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.

And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.

It was not just Americans attending...

That is a very long time interval...

Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?

Why would it be unlikely?

[clearspira]

Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.

Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.

Before that, no MSM mention of them.

Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.

Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.

This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.

And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.

It was not just Americans attending...

That is a very long time interval...

Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?

Why would it be unlikely?

Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.

That is a long time interval?: 20 years when the primary way anyone found out about things was radio and newspapers? Not really. Most people didn't even have a TV back then.

70 years with thousands upon thousands of people knowing about a secret is a secret that will not be kept, especially in the last three decades where the ability to share information is now trivial. You are assuming aspects of human nature that just are not true.