Idiotic performative bluster.

It IS worth examining how Epstein achieved the trust and friendship of the rich and famous.

The other thing to note that not all, not even most of the young women procured were under-age.

And another thing to note is  that none of you mongs are anywhere near so excercised about the Muslim rape gangs that have been operating in England for decades with incalculabbley more underage girls as their victims, aided and shielded by the British political class and the police.

The next time you're abusive, I'm just going to ignore the abuse and reply with this poem I wrote about you:

Grandstanding in bad faith, mistaking volume for truth,
every argument you touch collapses into spite.
tactics first, facts never, you reach for venom on cue.

From lies dressed up as confidence to insults passed off as wit,
unable to argue a point without smearing the person instead.
cowardice shows when evidence appears and you pivot to abuse.
knowledge isn't your enemy, Frank, honesty is.
every disagreement becomes a personal vendetta,
debate reduced to sneers, dogwhistles and distortion.

Fear seems to sit at the core of it, fear of difference, fear of challenge.
racism, thinly masked, doing the heavy lifting when logic fails.
all the while you call it "telling it like it is",
nothing more than prejudice dressed up as bravado.
keep it, Frank, the rest of us are done pretending it's anything else.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2026 at 12:36pm:


You keep insisting this is some detached sociological exercise, but given your history, nobody should pretend this is being offered in good faith.

Yes, you ritualistically state that Epstein was a paedophile and that the world is better off without him. That sentence is doing an extraordinary amount of laundering for what follows.

What you then present is not analysis, it is rationalisation. You take a child rape enterprise and reframe it as a case study in elite loneliness, ego management, and networking psychology. That shift matters. It moves responsibility away from the abuser and his enablers and towards a narrative where exploitation becomes an almost understandable by-product of unmet emotional needs.

The pattern is familiar.

Every time Epstein comes up, you don't interrogate the adults who knowingly associated with a convicted sex offender, you empathise with them. Lonely, burnt out, touch-starved, misunderstood geniuses. Somehow the only people who don't get interiority in your story are the children.

You speculate endlessly about Bill Gates' emotional state, Fergie's sexuality, scientists' egos, politicians' resentment of voters, yet you treat systemic abuse as background noise. That is not neutral analysis. That is a moral reordering where the comfort of powerful adults is foregrounded and the harm to minors is abstracted away.

And let's be clear, Epstein's "skill" was not networking. It was predation enabled by wealth, power, and institutional cowardice. He did not discover a clever hack for winning trust. He exploited the fact that elite circles will tolerate almost anything, including known child abuse, so long as access, flattery, and deniability are preserved.

Framing this as something "the chodes should study" is particularly grotesque. What exactly is the lesson here? That if you massage enough egos and supply enough bodies, the abuse becomes comprehensible? That predators should be admired for operational competence?

Given your track record of minimising, deflecting, and reframing responsibility whenever Epstein's associates are mentioned, nobody is obliged to treat this as curiosity rather than apologetics. If you genuinely wanted to understand Epstein, you would start with why so many powerful adults chose to look away from the abuse of children, not with how lonely billionaires felt while doing it.

Frank wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 3:59pm:


They are off topic, that's why.  You are only pointing to them to minimise the pedophilia associated with people who are reflexively defending.

I honestly don't understand your compulsion to defend child abusers.

It's becoming, sadly, a familiar pattern with you...

Frank wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 3:59pm:


Not at all, dear boy. It's worth what those squares who uphold the rule of law call investigating.

You gave this up yourself many moons ago, which might explain your frantic calls to bury the Epstein files altogether. Nothing to see here, no?

Just so. After all, the last thing you want is anybody studying you-know-who, dear.

You'd disagwee with the very pwemise, as every schoolboy knows.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 5:07pm:


Pedophilia and sex abuse by muslim rape gangs fits into the topic.

Turning a blind eye to sex crimes including pedophilia is the topic.

I honesly dont understand your compjlsion to defend Muslim child abusers.

Is it a wacism thing??

(Yes.)

I hereby and henceforth condemn all child sex crimes, dear boy. Can you do the same?

That's a question.

We may have a supplimentary.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 6:14pm:


Old boy?

Bobby does the same.

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 6:25pm:



Karnal,
we can't let em get away with it - hang em.