Did Epstein run a World Satanic Ring?

Belz... said:
How about you respond to the post you quoted, rather than launch into irrelevancies?



Absolutely not.

Your principal claim, and the title of this thread, is about Satanism. I'm asking you about Satanism and you keep changing the subject. That doesn't sound very confident.
Click to expand...

Still dodging questions, Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
… Richard Branson (hello? he can afford a whole fleet of Boeings).
Click to expand...
He doesn't keep them as personal toys in his garden. As you fully appreciate, he can't afford a fleet of Boeings; he can get the credit required to begin paying for them and they have to generate the cash to cover their own cost.

Robert Maxwell almost certainly managed to salt away a few million/billion which his daughter Ghislaine has clearly got her hands on. After his death you would have thought that the Maxwells would be bankrupt with their criminally gotten gains through raiding pension funds but no, Ghislaine has been rolling in money.
Click to expand...

If Ghislaine Maxwell was a billionaire why didn't Epstein end up working for her on her private island?
 
Vixen said:
If that is the hegemony then is that not true? Were you to be in Iran you'd be called an infidel. 'Twas e'er thus.
Click to expand...
But your very example here is an example of the way 'tis not. Everyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel to them. A person who does not have the faith. They do not say that everyone who is not a Muslim is a Christian, or a Jew, or a Sikh. Likewise, we might be justified in considering mystics and occultists together, but we would be fools to call them all Satanists.

A set is not a subset. We often speak of categories for convenience, but to presume that everyone in a broad category belongs to one of the subcategories is a common mistake when it is not (as it often is) a common practice of demagogues, racists and fear mongers.
 
Craig4 said:
I'll ask Prince Andrew. I understand his calendar is suddenly rather open.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one. I haven't really been following his case, do you know if there is any evidence against him other than this one woman's say-so?
 
Mycroft said:
Yeah, that's one. I haven't really been following his case, do you know if there is any evidence against him other than this one woman's say-so?
Click to expand...

And there's a picture proving they were together at the home of an Epstein associate implicated in the human trafficking charge. Andrew had denied meeting her. Andrew met with and stayed with Epstein after his conviction. That there is proof positive that Andrew met the girl at an Epstein associated property and he lied about it indicates a level of consciousness of guilt.
 
abaddon said:
What utter rot. The lack of a mention of jesus in any religion does not make said religion satanism. That is an impossibly naive idea.

And anyway, jesus cannot even be demonstrated to have existed.
Click to expand...

I am sure you are right. However, this is not a thread about whether there is such a thing as 'satan' or whether Jesus existed.

It's about whether Epstein ran a secret cult to facilitate a sex ring for the rich and influential, in which otherwise 'upright citizens' and 'pillars of the community' felt quite unabashed to attend and even participate.

Would you associate with the local sex offender? And yet people like Clinton and Prince Andrew did.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He doesn't keep them as personal toys in his garden. As you fully appreciate, he can't afford a fleet of Boeings; he can get the credit required to begin paying for them and they have to generate the cash to cover their own cost.



If Ghislaine Maxwell was a billionaire why didn't Epstein end up working for her on her private island?
Click to expand...

Follow the money trail. Epstein got the NY mansion, Islands and New Mexico ranch by Power of Attorney from Les Wexner (of Victoria Secrets, L Brand empire). Why a man in full possession of his faculties would want to hand over control of his wealth to a two-bit maths teacher from blue-collar Brooklyn is left for you to guess at (and by all accounts, Wexner was Epstein's ONLY client).

However, Epstein transferred Wexner's NY mansion and other estates into his name and bought the islands with Wexner's funds.

So you see, Ghislaine Maxwell didn't need to spend a cent on any of them. As his partner she got to enjoy the third-party wealth.

What was in it for Epstein? I can't imagine any Significant Other being well pleased with a never ending queue of teenage 'masseuers' turning up at the door of her beloved SO and being sexually assaulted by him in her presence. According to the alleged abused teens now taking out lawsuits, it was Ghislaine who acted as a procurer. In other words, she was little more than a common Madam.

In addition, as a well-known socialite who knew how to throw parties, she was useful for Epstein's networking and able to connect supply with demand. The commodity for Epstein being teenage girls for massages, sex and orgies. No questions asked, discretion assured, complete confidentiality, immune from prosecution.

How did this work? Blackmail. Videotapes. Corruption in high places.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
But your very example here is an example of the way 'tis not. Everyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel to them. A person who does not have the faith. They do not say that everyone who is not a Muslim is a Christian, or a Jew, or a Sikh. Likewise, we might be justified in considering mystics and occultists together, but we would be fools to call them all Satanists.

A set is not a subset. We often speak of categories for convenience, but to presume that everyone in a broad category belongs to one of the subcategories is a common mistake when it is not (as it often is) a common practice of demagogues, racists and fear mongers.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone assumes that at all. A poster was decrying the fact that satanists were considered to be baddies as they rejected the teachings of Christ. However, that is the social mores. People get their children christened. No parent says, I'm going to get my child satanised. It is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. People in society do find satanist behaviour shocking, whether they are right to do so or wrong, or even ignorant.

It is not true that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jedi, etcetera, are considered in our society to be 'satanic'. Only religious zealots would claim that.

People do associate the occult with the 'dark forces' whatever that may be, whether it's the Nazi Third Reich, Alistair Crowley, the Masons and other secret ancient Egytian-styled cults and 'satanic' is simply the generic term used for them. Trying to narrow the term down to fans of Anton LeFey, Jimmy Page, Marilyn Manson or Damien Echols is reductio ad absurdum. A logical fallacy.
 
Vixen said:
I am sure you are right. However, this is not a thread about whether there is such a thing as 'satan' or whether Jesus existed.

It's about whether Epstein ran a secret cult to facilitate a sex ring for the rich and influential, in which otherwise 'upright citizens' and 'pillars of the community' felt quite unabashed to attend and even participate.
Click to expand...
You clearly associated satan and satanism into that equation. Too late to back out now.

You are going to have to let go of the fear and superstition created entirely by clergy for exactly the purpose of engendering said fear and superstition in their flocks.

Was Epstein and various other "pillars of society" engaged in sleazy, illegal and indeed utterly horrendous activities? There seems little doubt of that.

Could the term "ring" be correctly applied? Sure.

But the hysterical hyperbole of "satanic" anything is risible.


Vixen said:
Would you associate with the local sex offender?
Click to expand...
How would I or anyone else know that they were associating with any sex offender? Do you go record checking everyone you meet?

Vixen said:
And yet people like Clinton and Prince Andrew did.
Click to expand...
Andrew has no excuse since since he was still associating with Epstein after his conviction. Don't know if Clinton was so can't comment.
 
abaddon said:
You clearly associated satan and satanism into that equation. Too late to back out now.

You are going to have to let go of the fear and superstition created entirely by clergy for exactly the purpose of engendering said fear and superstition in their flocks.

Was Epstein and various other "pillars of society" engaged in sleazy, illegal and indeed utterly horrendous activities? There seems little doubt of that.

Could the term "ring" be correctly applied? Sure.

But the hysterical hyperbole of "satanic" anything is risible.


How would I or anyone else know that they were associating with any sex offender? Do you go record checking everyone you meet?

Andrew has no excuse since since he was still associating with Epstein after his conviction. Don't know if Clinton was so can't comment.
Click to expand...


Why is it risible? You can claim it is manufactured fear but the fact is, people do buy into it.

For example, a bunch of schoolgirls play with a ouija board for a laugh. For most of those schoolkids it remains 'laugh', even if something weird happens. Others will rationalise the weird event as someone manipulating the board or the glass. Maybe one of them will sincerely believe something sinister happened. Who are you or I to know which of these groups of people are right? Saying, it's rubbish, doesn't make it so.

There was the case of famous musician. Graham Bond, of the Graham Bond Organisation, precurser to The Cream, who certainly believed in satanism. He was involved in a Black Magic psychic fight with other practitioners and ended up killing himself.

Graham Bond reunited with his former bandmates in the early 1970s, playing with Ginger Baker's Air Force and also spending a short time touring with Jack Bruce's band. He subsequently signed a contract with Vertigo Records and was reportedly off drugs by this time, although he was becoming increasingly obsessed with black magic. Bond died in May 1974, when he was hit by a train at London's Finsbury Park underground station.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graham_Bond_Organisation

Now you can sit at your laptop jeering, rubbish! But it wasn't rubbish for this particular individual.

Likewise, Epstein theming his sex parties around satanic symbolism might just be seen as a 'laugh' by some but for others, who knows, they might really have believed they were spiritually protected by being in the sex ring.

Certainly nobody has ever been prosecuted for what is clearly an international sex ring involving prominent figures, apart from a nominal 13-month sentence for procuring a prostitute (note, not 'sex trafficking', which specifies underage girls, a much more serious offence) of which Epstein was given huge amounts of day release which he spent at his office on a Caribbean Island.
 
Vixen said:
It's about whether Epstein ran a secret cult to facilitate a sex ring for the rich and influential, in which otherwise 'upright citizens' and 'pillars of the community' felt quite unabashed to attend and even participate.
Click to expand...

Many are persuaded that the highlighted part is likely substantially true.

This thread is about the non-highlighted part and the paucity of supporting evidence, which fails to keep pace with your imagination as it gallops over the horizon.
 
Vixen said:
I don't think anyone assumes that at all. A poster was decrying the fact that satanists were considered to be baddies as they rejected the teachings of Christ. However, that is the social mores. People get their children christened. No parent says, I'm going to get my child satanised. It is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. People in society do find satanist behaviour shocking, whether they are right to do so or wrong, or even ignorant.

It is not true that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jedi, etcetera, are considered in our society to be 'satanic'. Only religious zealots would claim that.

People do associate the occult with the 'dark forces' whatever that may be, whether it's the Nazi Third Reich, Alistair Crowley, the Masons and other secret ancient Egytian-styled cults and 'satanic' is simply the generic term used for them. Trying to narrow the term down to fans of Anton LeFey, Jimmy Page, Marilyn Manson or Damien Echols is reductio ad absurdum. A logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed my point. You have said more or less that all occult beliefs are functionally equivalent to "satanism" because satanism is an occult belief and shares much with many. If that was not what you meant when you said it, you said it badly. You then introduced the idea of Muslims characterizing all non-Muslims as "infidels" as an example.

I point out that although all non Muslims are infidels to them, this does not mean that all infidels are the same. The Muslims call us all infidels but they do not call us all Christians. That would be a large category mistake which they do not, as far as I know, make. You may consider "Satanism" a generic term for occult beliefs, but most would not. There are, for one thing, a fair number of deeply occult beliefs (or cults if you prefer) which espouse Christian ideas and oppose Satan as much as any mainstream Christian religions.

You can go round and round and try to justify sloppy categorization and a poor choice of words, but like it or not, dabbling in the occult does not make a person a satanist, and I have yet to see any evidence that Epstein was anything but a deviant, power hungry showman with bad taste.

And as an aside, not everyone has their children christened, and the choice is not binary.
 
Belz... said:
Well first you could own up to the fact that Baal is not an Egyptian god.
Click to expand...

When I frequented the British Museum there appeared to be quite a lot of 'bull' diety figures and the name Apis is oft-noted as is Ba'al.

Mentioned in Exodus 32 and I Kings 12 in the Old Testament, worship of the golden calf is seen as a supreme act of apostasy, the rejection of a faith once confessed. The figure is probably a representation of the Egyptian bull god Apis in the earlier period and of the Canaanite fertility god Baal in the latter.
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/golden-calf

All right. Let's correct it then:

'Worshipping ancient Egyptian, Caanite, Sumerian, Hittite deities.' However, that would have the subject unreasonably unwieldy.
 
Vixen said:
When I frequented the British Museum there appeared to be quite a lot of 'bull' diety figures and the name Apis is oft-noted as is Ba'al.
Click to expand...

Associating gods across different mythologies is fun but Ba'al is not an Egyptian god, regardless of how many cow deities you can find.

All right. Let's correct it then:

'Worshipping ancient Egyptian, Caanite, Sumerian, Hittite deities.' However, that would have the subject unreasonably unwieldy.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to correct?

You said that the bible spoke of Ba'al as a clear reference to egyptian gods. That is incorrect, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom