Hacker News Reader

Comment by notahacker | Hacker News Reader

Apart from anything else, it seems like the popular theories about politicians running paedophile rings came after the mainstream media revelations about very well connected socialite Jeffrey Epstein, not before.

Posting a wild theory about al Qaeda and three letter agencies and US 'neoconservative' foreign policy on September 10th 2001 is at least interesting, if not exactly hard evidence you know anything. Posting one on September 12th 2001 isn't an indication of you having been aware of anything more than the news cycle.

View on HN

Re: popular theories post-Epstein:

In the late 80s/very early 90s there were people in Usenet’s alt.sex who told of their participation, as children, in wealthy sex rings. One in particular made claims that he had been well-compensated, in that he was also provided an excellent education and developed the connections to the wealthy and powerful that ensured his outstanding success in adult life.

These theories are (a) not new and (b) IMO likely true. Having seen what humans are capable of doing to one another, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a cadre of powerful people who use child rape to gain blackmail material, ensure loyalty, and to get their sick jollies off.

I am always surprised by those who express doubt. Have they not watched the news? Humans can do the most horrific things for pleasure, let alone power and wealth.

Sure, sexual abuse is obviously very common and not unconnected with power, stories about actual abuse and similar fantasies about abuse and power have been around forever, and untangling the two isn't always easy, especially when they crop up during the same well-publicised case like the UK's Operation Yewtree. And sometimes you hear something about a famous person long before it becomes more than gossip (I heard about a friend of an acquaintance who was in Hollywood "dating" the wealthy and very eligible fortysomething X-men director when we were all in our late teens a decade before rather grubbier accounts about Bryan Singer and very young men appeared)

But there's a big difference between that and various very grand theories about certain US politicians that claim the story of Epstein is new evidence and corroboration, not old news and inspiration.

> Apart from anything else, it seems like the popular theories about politicians running paedophile rings came after the mainstream media revelations about very well connected socialite Jeffrey Epstein, not before.

They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.

Something interesting about humans is that they often criticize members of their outgroups for being bad at thinking or holding false beliefs, but in the process of doing so the person doing the criticizing demonstrates that they suffer from the very same problem.

Case in point:

> They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.

It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people. And yet to the (standard) human mind, the exact opposite seems true.

It is strange that our whole world runs on this phenomenon, but it seems like it is not possible to get anyone to discuss the phenomenon. Granted, expecting someone who is suffering from the phenomenon to acknowledge it at the time that it occurs isn't terribly realistic, and I can accept that. But the weird part to me is that it is rarely possible to get anyone to acknowledge the phenomenon....it is very much like the fable of the emperor having no clothes, but in real life, right here and now.

Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.

> Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me.

I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for!

If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird".

> We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.

Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it?

And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com