Epstein Witnesses and Holocaust Witnesses

[Stubble]

Not meaning to pick on anyone in particular, but here is another parallel with the Holocaust. From X:



Also discussed on Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bekahdayyy/vide ... 9453042974
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/commen ... _findings/
Meidas Touch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z1a2_dvrPM&t=240s

Because of the scarcity of explicit incriminating writings in the Epstein files, the word "whoops" is being interpreted as a euphemism for a hit, i.e. murder. But since it also appears in circumstances where the person being referred to was clearly still living, in those cases it is interpreted as a euphemism for something else like rape.

Actually, among just the first few of the 419 instances where the word "whoops" appears in the currently available files, most of them have no possible euphemistic intepretation. Epstein replied "whoops" to a woman aging, to a person passing a language test, and as an apology for making typos. Common sense suggests that this was a simple, multi-purpose exclamation for Epstein. Often used callously, not euphemistically.

It seems possible that the email where someone named Susan literally wrote "I give you permission to kill him" could connect to a real crime. Much less so for the other 418 instances, and yet some of these amateurs are trying to say that these were actually 419 people Epstein killed or raped. Making a circus out of it.

Obvious parallels to "special treatment" and "resettlement" and other alleged Holocaust euphemisms.

Flooding the zone. It's like with the pizzagate thing and qanon. You initiate an op to get people to buy in to some debunkable and crazy shit so you can debunk it and dismiss the whole thing as just a herd of retards.

It's like with the holy H. You have people calling the entire ordeal an 'it' and then saying people deny 'it' happened. Or people strawmanning the most ridiculous stuff just to debunk it.

With the wooden 'door' it gets comical to me. Holocaust enthusiasts point to the wooden door with the window in it, that was actually said to be part of the homicidal gas chamber until the '90's, and debunk it and say 'deniers are so stupid'. Never mind that the doors in Kremas II, III, IV and V were, you know, wood...

[bombsaway]

Not meaning to pick on anyone in particular, but here is another parallel with the Holocaust. From X:



Also discussed on Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bekahdayyy/vide ... 9453042974
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/commen ... _findings/
Meidas Touch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z1a2_dvrPM&t=240s

Because of the scarcity of explicit incriminating writings in the Epstein files, the word "whoops" is being interpreted as a euphemism for a hit, i.e. murder. But since it also appears in circumstances where the person being referred to was clearly still living, in those cases it is interpreted as a euphemism for something else like rape.

Actually, among just the first few of the 419 instances where the word "whoops" appears in the currently available files, most of them have no possible euphemistic intepretation. Epstein replied "whoops" to a woman aging, to a person passing a language test, and as an apology for making typos. Common sense suggests that this was a simple, multi-purpose exclamation for Epstein. Often used callously, not euphemistically.

It seems possible that the email where someone named Susan literally wrote "I give you permission to kill him" could connect to a real crime. Much less so for the other 418 instances, and yet some of these amateurs are trying to say that these were actually 419 people Epstein killed or raped. Making a circus out of it.

Obvious parallels to "special treatment" and "resettlement" and other alleged Holocaust euphemisms.

Flooding the zone. It's like with the pizzagate thing and qanon. You initiate an op to get people to buy in to some debunkable and crazy shit so you can debunk it and dismiss the whole thing as just a herd of retards.

It's like with the holy H. You have people calling the entire ordeal an 'it' and then saying people deny 'it' happened. Or people strawmanning the most ridiculous stuff just to debunk it.

With the wooden 'door' it gets comical to me. Holocaust enthusiasts point to the wooden door with the window in it, that was actually said to be part of the homicidal gas chamber until the '90's, and debunk it and say 'deniers are so stupid'. Never mind that the doors in Kremas II, III, IV and V were, you know, wood...

Except resettlement and special treatment both are clearly used as code or euphemism for killing in Nazi documents. The mainstream position is explicitly evidenced here.

[Stubble]

Every instance Bombsaway?

Every single instance of special treatment and resettlement?

Dude...

[bombsaway]

Every instance Bombsaway?

Every single instance of special treatment and resettlement?

Dude...

No. The record suggests mixed use. When it comes to things like mass "resettlement" in USSR once the ghettos were dissolved, the meaning is either unclear or definitively about killing, no similar context which would suggest actual resettlement.

The explicit use of coded language (where it is obvious that they are talking about the thing not directly spelled out) is something that you see w "Resettlement" but not in this example w Epstein. What would you think if sometimes "whoops" definitely did refer to killing.

Like "We whoopsed 3 girls and have to bury them now"

"Pizza" is definitely a code word for something. You guys seem operate in a world where people doing unseemly things by default don't hide that at all in this kind of correspondence.

[Stubble]

Goyim is a code word too, I suppose...

Remember there are no bad tactics...

https://odysee.com/@JustAudiobooks:0/Th ... S4ivH2ECvj

[bombsaway]

Epstein used code words but I don't think goy was one of them lol

[Wetzelrad]

The record suggests mixed use. [...] What would you think if sometimes "whoops" definitely did refer to killing.

If "whoops" was the best evidence for what are asserted to be 400 murders, then I would find the whole thing laughable, which I do.

If there were clear and convincing evidence for a murder in one instance, then it would warrant a closer look at other instances, but it would remain laughable that random emails about typos and test scores were being taken as coded references to murder. No bodies, no names, nothing at all of substance? The more likely conclusion is that "whoops" was a mundane remark in the majority of cases, if not all of them.

By comparison, how have the Holocaust experts interpreted terms that could be of "mixed use"? It turns out that they have taken every possible instance of a perceived euphemism as a definite reference to killing. They are as careless with the evidence as Jake Shields. Especially Danuta Czech. This is why revisionists have had to dedicate so much writing to addressing these misinterpretations. In particular I would point to Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen, Special Treatment in Auschwitz, and Healthcare in Auschwitz, all of which have long sections on this, but it's also a ubiquitous type of error so it appears everywhere.

"Pizza" is definitely a code word for something.

Holocaust experts consider this to be a debunked antisemitic conspiracy theory, by the way.

[bombsaway]

The record suggests mixed use. [...] What would you think if sometimes "whoops" definitely did refer to killing.

If "whoops" was the best evidence for what are asserted to be 400 murders, then I would find the whole thing laughable, which I do.

If there were clear and convincing evidence for a murder in one instance, then it would warrant a closer look at other instances, but it would remain laughable that random emails about typos and test scores were being taken as coded references to murder. No bodies, no names, nothing at all of substance? The more likely conclusion is that "whoops" was a mundane remark in the majority of cases, if not all of them.

By comparison, how have the Holocaust experts interpreted terms that could be of "mixed use"? It turns out that they have taken every possible instance of a perceived euphemism as a definite reference to killing. They are as careless with the evidence as Jake Shields. Especially Danuta Czech. This is why revisionists have had to dedicate so much writing to addressing these misinterpretations. In particular I would point to Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen, Special Treatment in Auschwitz, and Healthcare in Auschwitz, all of which have long sections on this, but it's also a ubiquitous type of error so it appears everywhere.

I've quoted Mattogno before talking about the use of "resettlement" being code word for mass killing.

An example would be a document which says 20,000 Jews from Brest Litovsk resettled, and then later in the same document these 20,000 Jews shot.

A well known "resettlement" would be what happened to the Jews of Volhynia and Podolia. You have "resettlements" occurring throughout this entire region over a few month period.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... to_16.html

Why don't you look through the evidence here and tell me why you think we should believe these Jews (which included that cohort from Brest Litovsk, where actually housed somewhere instead of being shot.

Holocaust experts consider this to be a debunked antisemitic conspiracy theory, by the way.

What, which experts lol? Is this supposed to be a reference to pizza gate?

[Wetzelrad]

Continued problems with the amateur Epstein investigation. Joe Rogan reading off an Epstein email (link to clip):

"[Your] friend Aleszea told me about [the] project she is doing researching a really bad guy that gets children for sex sent to his island. She almost fainted when I told her that person is me."

Like what? Okay, so that's just there. There's no way to interpret that any other way. "That person is me."

"Children for sex sent to his island... That person is me." Holy shit.

Rogan's interpretation is that this email proves Epstein was a child sex trafficker. He ignores the obvious and more supportable interpretation which is that Aleszea described the news story of a purported child sex trafficker and Epstein merely identified himself as the person in that story. Identifying yourself as the person identified in a news story does not confer an admission of guilt for what the story purports.

I'm sure this too has some analogues in Holocaust history. I'm reminded of the memo where Himmler denied Rabbi Wise's news story of mass murder and human soap. Holocaust scholars have interpreted that memo as proof of one thing or another, when it's really just the natural reaction of a befuddled man hit with slanderous, widely published accusations.

Another item. Joe Rogan quoting from a viral social media post about Epstein's prostate (link):

"He [actually: You] can have high testosterone and still have a need for Viagra, because you don't have a prostate, right?"

And then Epstein says: "Correct."

Rogan goes on to suggest that this supports the theory that Epstein is still alive. But actually it's a simple misread. The document being quoted can be read in full here. It is a transcription of a conversation between Jeffrey Epstein and someone named Richard. In it, Richard first mentioned a prostate issue in the context of a sick friend of his. Epstein then suggested testosterone replacement for that friend. After which they repeatedly used the word "you" in the hypothetical sense of referring to any man. Read in context, the question "you don't have a prostate?" clearly refers to this hypothetical "you" and not to Epstein personally.

These are the kinds of malicious interpretations you get when people with an axe to grind are given wide-ranging access to every written record of your life. Although it couldn't have happened to a worse guy. I only decry the inaccuracies.

[fireofice]

Btw there are full on Jeffrey Epstein child trafficking deniers like Michael Tracey. He goes as far as saying that Maxwell was wrongly convicted. The most he'll concede for Epstein was that he pleaded guilty to one charge of underage prostitution for a girl named Ashley Davis on the day before she turned 18, and that the rest of the girls were instructed to lie about their ages to him, essentially saying they were 18 when they weren't. He then goes on to argue that accusers like Virginia Giuffre, Maria Farmer, and others are unreliable fabulists. I won't comment on the veracity of his claims here, but it is interesting to see from one side people play up every atrocity presented as absolutely true and then the "denier" Tracey coming in to deny it all, and then there are some in the middle who think trafficking happened, but don't go full "they ate babies". Perhaps they can be considered the halfway types like Cole and Irving in this controversy.

Somehow I doubt Tracey would be willing to apply the same scrutiny to the holocaust as the Epstein saga. Although he is already facing massive backlash over what he's currently doing. A man can only take so much I suppose (although one could argue he would face much less backlash for holocaust denial on X these days than Epstein trafficking denial ). However, I suspect he actually does believe it, and not merely avoiding it to avoid backlash.

[Wetzelrad]

Btw there are full on Jeffrey Epstein child trafficking deniers like Michael Tracey.

Not just that, Tracey denies practically everything about Epstein. He denies Epstein's connections to Israel, he denies the justice system's sweetheart treatment of Epstein and Maxwell, he denies the moral failings of those who, at the very least, were friendly with Epstein after his conviction.

His go-to defense is witness criticism, which is well enough, but he clearly exaggerates it. He attributes the greatest importance to a victim named Virginia Giuffre not because of actual demonstrated importance but because she was the one victim who was successfully pressured to retract claims she had made. He is totally credulous for whatever the legal system found to be true. Actually he goes even further than that because he overemphasizes statements by the DoJ or victim lawyers where they described their legal situation unfavorably.

And yet I can't totally oppose Tracey's efforts because someone has to correct the false info out there. The people who post false info or, to whatever extent it may be, promote false witnesses, are largely to blame for giving him this ammo.

The parallels with the Holocaust seemed particularly obvious to me in this post where someone interviewing Tracey summarized his claims as "The entire Epstein mythology stems from one alleged victim—Virginia Giuffre", who is then said to be discredited. All too easy to make the exact same statement about a "death camp" like Treblinka, but there it would be substantially more true.

But the parallels only go so far. If pressed, Tracey would be able to argue that the courts are on his side on both topics.

[Archie]

Btw there are full on Jeffrey Epstein child trafficking deniers like Michael Tracey. He goes as far as saying that Maxwell was wrongly convicted. The most he'll concede for Epstein was that he pleaded guilty to one charge of underage prostitution for a girl named Ashley Davis on the day before she turned 18, and that the rest of the girls were instructed to lie about their ages to him, essentially saying they were 18 when they weren't. He then goes on to argue that accusers like Virginia Giuffre, Maria Farmer, and others are unreliable fabulists. I won't comment on the veracity of his claims here, but it is interesting to see from one side people play up every atrocity presented as absolutely true and then the "denier" Tracey coming in to deny it all, and then there are some in the middle who think trafficking happened, but don't go full "they ate babies". Perhaps they can be considered the halfway types like Cole and Irving in this controversy.

Somehow I doubt Tracey would be willing to apply the same scrutiny to the holocaust as the Epstein saga. Although he is already facing massive backlash over what he's currently doing. A man can only take so much I suppose (although one could argue he would face much less backlash for holocaust denial on X these days than Epstein trafficking denial ). However, I suspect he actually does believe it, and not merely avoiding it to avoid backlash.

Tracey is oddly invested in Epstein revisionism. Richard Hanania is another one pushing this (albeit much more casually).

My strong priors are that Tracey may well be correct on certain particulars but he almost certainly wrong overall. The thing is, since he's spent a lot of time looking into the topic he can out-debate most people on this. I remember seeing a documentary on the Palm Beach charges and I found it to be absolutely damning. Tracey seems to be ignoring that people often get charges that are far less than what they are actually guilty of. And this is especially true if you are a rich Jew with good lawyers and the Jewish State's Attorney (Barry Kirshner) gives you a sweetheart deal. Assuming that what Kirshner charged him with represents the extent of his crimes is rather ridiculous.

Tracey has also pushed back on Epstein running blackmail schemes and/or intel gathering. But to my knowledge he has not offered any real explanation for Epstein's highly suspicious finances. Vanity Fair did a piece on him in 2002 and the journalist who wrote it (Vicky Ward) didn't think Epstein's story was adding up. He was supposedly managing all this money from billionaires, yet there was no indication of him doing any trading. You can't manage billions of dollars without making some waves. His finances are Madoff-level suspicious.