Lolita Express is finally arrested.

I think there is a serious issue of powerful people who have victimized children hiding behind redactions.

But this doesnt mean I can't enjoy the irony that certain people (now in high positions of government) have fanned conspiracy theories for shits, giggles and KA$$H and that it is all coming back to burn them.

Those conspiracy theorists themselves are mostly a joke (on both sides of this matter). In this particular instance, some of them may serve some good by agitating for more disclosure of so-far redacted or unreleased documents.

I suppose there is a slightly possibility that Q theorists and some other sub-genre of the conspiracy theorist demimonde will serve some public good at some point in the future. Will not change the fact that they are a bunch of jokers and deserving of scorn.
 
nsacpi said:
I think there is a serious issue of powerful people who have victimized children hiding behind redactions.

But this doesnt mean I can't enjoy the irony that certain people (now in high positions of government) have fanned conspiracy theories for shits, giggles and KA$$H and that it is all coming back to burn them.

Those conspiracy theorists themselves are mostly a joke. In this particular instance, they may serve some good by agitating for more disclosure of so-far redacted or unreleased documents.
Click to expand...
When you say you dont have a dog in this fight it's odd to me you wouldn't want people who abused children to be brought to justice
 
sturg33 said:
When you say you dont have a dog in this fight it's odd to me you wouldn't want people who abused children to be brought to justice
Click to expand...
No. I'm on the side of more disclosure. Dog in the fight is between the two groups in this argument. Neither are friends of the truth. It so happens that I am aligned with one faction on this particular matter but it doesn't blind me to the fact that they are dishonorable people who peddle lies as a matter of habit. They make up and peddle shit like pizzagate and the Seth Rich nonsense and Q. And that's how they should be viewed. I allow for the possibility that on this particular issue their outrage may produce a desirable outcome.

If I quote someone like Bannon or Tucker cuz they said something that makes a bit of sense don't think I have for a second changed my view that they are basically garbage human beings. I quote them partly because it is always an amazing sight to see a dog playing a violin. So amazing we don't really consider how well it is playing.
 
Last edited:
This about sums it up. A bunch of retarded people who have bought a bunch of lies from the likes of KA$$H for years suddenly are upset they have been lied to. Give me a fooking break. Am I supposed to be impressed all of a sudden by the commitment to the truth and transparency. Their outrage is good busine$$. I'll give them credit for that. Not for good intentions. Yes there is hilarity to see a bunch of scammers getting pissed at another bunch of scammers.

GvuYEE3WQAAXqK_
 
Last edited:
I dont get paid to push this narrative and I very much want the people who abused children, many in our government im sure, to go to prison or worse
 
I'm all for releasing all of the materials. Redactions be damned. If someone thinks they are going to be embarrassed by their names being in the materials they can explain to a judge why anything pertaining to them should be redacted. I suspect the people with the most to lose are the prosecutors and law enforcement officials who gave sweetheart deals to Epstein and others.
 
The question I have to ask is why anyone would ever consider Patel, Bongino and Bondi to be reliable and trustworthy sources of information in the first place. If known peddlers of lies and conspiracy theories peddle lies and conspiracy theories, it is a performative in the extreme to pretend to be outraged.
 
Grok's take:

You’re right to question why the outrage against Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi feels performative, especially given their established records of promoting conspiracy theories and unverified claims. The sudden shock among some MAGA supporters seems disproportionate when you consider their histories. Here’s an analysis of their track records and why the outrage might seem performative or hypocritical, grounded in their public actions and the dynamics of their audience.


Track Records of Peddling Lies and Conspiracy Theories​


  1. Kash Patel:
    • History of Conspiracy Promotion: Patel has a well-documented history of amplifying conspiracy theories, particularly during his time as a Trump administration official and conservative commentator. His book Government Gangsters and appearances on platforms like X and Steve Bannon’s War Room pushed narratives about a “deep state” orchestrating plots against Trump, including unfounded claims about election fraud in 2020 and Epstein’s death being a murder cover-up. X posts from 2020-2024 show him questioning the official Epstein suicide ruling and suggesting ties to intelligence agencies like the CIA or Mossad, often without evidence.
    • Lack of Substantiation: Patel’s claims frequently relied on insinuation rather than verifiable facts. For instance, his assertions about Epstein’s “client list” or a broader conspiracy lacked concrete documentation, yet they were widely shared among MAGA circles. His role as FBI Director in 2025, where he endorsed the DOJ’s finding that no such list existed, directly contradicted his earlier rhetoric, highlighting the performative nature of his prior claims.
    • Why It’s Not Surprising: Patel’s pattern of making bold, unverified claims was consistent with his brand as an anti-establishment provocateur. Supporters who trusted him were likely aware of his speculative style, making their shock at his failure to deliver on Epstein revelations seem like selective outrage.
  2. Dan Bongino:
    • Conspiracy Peddling in Media: As a conservative commentator with a massive following on X and his podcast, Bongino has a long history of promoting unverified theories. He repeatedly questioned Epstein’s suicide, calling it “fishy” and suggesting a cover-up involving powerful elites. He also pushed 2020 election fraud claims, COVID-19 misinformation, and narratives about FBI corruption, often with little evidence beyond anecdotes or selective sourcing.
    • Performative Rhetoric: Bongino’s bombastic style—calling out the “deep state” and hyping revelations that rarely materialized—was a hallmark of his brand. His audience, accustomed to this, lapped up his Epstein commentary, expecting blockbuster reveals. His endorsement of the 2025 DOJ-FBI memo, which debunked the “client list” and reaffirmed the suicide ruling, was a stark departure from his prior narrative, but it aligns with his pattern of adapting to new roles (e.g., as Deputy FBI Director).
    • Why Outrage Seems Performative: Bongino’s followers were drawn to his sensationalism, not his factual accuracy. The outrage over his “betrayal” ignores that his claims were often speculative, designed to engage rather than inform. The shock feels performative because his audience implicitly accepted his loose relationship with evidence.
  3. Pam Bondi:
    • Mixed Record on Truthfulness: As Florida’s Attorney General (2011-2019), Bondi faced criticism for questionable actions, such as dropping a Trump University investigation after receiving a $25,000 campaign donation from Trump in 2013, which raised ethics concerns. While not directly tied to conspiracy theories, this history suggested a willingness to prioritize political loyalty over transparency, a pattern that continued in her role as Trump’s Attorney General.
    • Epstein Promises and Flip-Flops: In 2025, Bondi fueled expectations by claiming she had Epstein’s files, including flight logs and names, “on my desk” for review. This fed into MAGA hopes of exposing a grand conspiracy. However, her later support for the DOJ-FBI memo, which found no “client list” or blackmail scheme, contradicted her earlier statements, aligning with a pattern of overpromising and underdelivering.
    • Why It’s Not Surprising: Bondi’s history of aligning with Trump’s agenda, even when it involved questionable ethics, was well-known. Her Epstein promises were in line with the MAGA desire for dramatic revelations, but her failure to produce them fits her record of prioritizing political optics over substance. The outrage seems performative because her supporters overlooked her past inconsistencies when she was a Trump ally.

Why the Outrage Feels Performative​


  1. Audience Complicity in Conspiracy Culture:
    • The MAGA base, which heavily overlaps with the audiences of Patel, Bongino, and Bondi, has long embraced conspiracy theories as a core part of its identity. From QAnon to election fraud to Epstein’s death, supporters have been conditioned to expect blockbuster revelations that rarely materialize. X posts from 2020-2025 show a consistent pattern of hype around Epstein’s “client list” with little regard for evidence.
    • The outrage over the 2025 memo feels performative because these supporters were not demanding rigorous proof when Patel and Bongino were peddling unverified claims. They accepted the speculation as truth because it aligned with their worldview. The sudden anger at being “lied to” ignores their willingness to embrace those lies when they served the narrative.
  2. Selective Memory and Double Standards:
    • The shock expressed by influencers like Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, and X users (e.g., @VoteHarrisOut, @MilaLovesJoe) conveniently ignores that Patel, Bongino, and Bondi’s credibility was always tied to their loyalty to Trump, not their factual accuracy. For years, their audiences cheered their anti-establishment rhetoric, even when it was speculative or exaggerated.
    • The outrage seems performative because it hinges on a double standard: supporters accepted their conspiracy peddling as long as it targeted enemies (e.g., the “deep state,” Democrats). When the same figures aligned with an official narrative, the outrage felt more like disappointment over a lost narrative than genuine betrayal over lies.
  3. Performative Nature of MAGA Outrage:
    • The MAGA movement thrives on outrage as a unifying force, often amplified by influencers on X and other platforms. The backlash against Patel, Bongino, and Bondi fits this pattern, with figures like Loomer and Jones leveraging the Epstein memo to rally their audiences against perceived betrayals. Posts on X, such as @RetroCoast’s call for Bondi’s resignation, mirror earlier outrage cycles over other issues (e.g., election fraud, COVID policies).
    • This performative outrage serves to maintain engagement within the movement, redirecting frustration from the lack of evidence to the figures who failed to deliver. It’s less about their lies and more about the base’s need for a constant enemy, even if it’s former allies.
  4. Ignoring Their Own Role in Amplifying Lies:
    • Supporters who are now outraged at Patel, Bongino, and Bondi for “lying” about Epstein’s files were often complicit in spreading those same unverified claims. For example, X users shared and amplified Patel’s and Bongino’s Epstein theories for years, rarely questioning their lack of evidence. The sudden pivot to accusing them of betrayal glosses over the fact that the base embraced their speculative rhetoric without scrutiny.

Broader Context​


The outrage is performative to the extent that it reflects a selective demand for truth. Patel, Bongino, and Bondi’s records of promoting conspiracy theories or making misleading claims were evident long before the Epstein memo. Their appeal was rooted in their ability to feed the MAGA base’s desire for narratives that confirmed their distrust of institutions. When they failed to deliver on the Epstein “client list” and endorsed an official narrative, the outrage was less about their lying (a known trait) and more about the collapse of a cherished conspiracy.


Conclusion​


Patel, Bongino, and Bondi were trusted not for their truthfulness but for their alignment with MAGA’s
 
I think Grok's point about audience complicity in conspiracy culture is well-taken.

As are its points about selective memory and double standards, the performative nature of MAGA outrage, and folks ignoring their own roles in amplifying lies.

Elon needs to give Grok another tweak to make it less woke.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1944136867252785228

Bongino staying home on Friday is entirely in line with his performative persona. And when he resigns it will be the same. The grifting never stops. I do give him credit for being an astute busine$$man and making sure none of this impairs his financial future. Is he sincere in his desire to protect our children? I have questions.
 
The irony of the Epstein drama is no one actually gives a fuck about the kids who were abused. People are just pissed at Bondi and Kash because they promised them blood and red meat.

The problem with a political movement that sprung up amongst conspiracy theorists is that the theories they peddled were always ridiculous (FWIW - I think there’s much more substance to the Epstein “suicide” stuff — and powerful people were clearly complicit — but the “black book” part always seemed a bit too crime thriller novel to be true).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mqt
chop2chip said:
The irony of the Epstein drama is no one actually gives a fuck about the kids who were abused.
Click to expand...
This deserves emphasis. Anyone who really cares about actual for real cases of pedophilia and human trafficking would not waste time on (let alone amplify) the conspiracy theories that deflect attention (and resources) from the real thang.

Bondi pulling the rug out from under the maga influencers is in some sort of ironic convoluted way a public service.
 
chop2chip said:
The irony of the Epstein drama is no one actually gives a fuck about the kids who were abused. People are just pissed at Bondi and Kash because they promised them blood and red meat.

The problem with a political movement that sprung up amongst conspiracy theorists is that the theories they peddled were always ridiculous (FWIW - I think there’s much more substance to the Epstein “suicide” stuff — and powerful people were clearly complicit — but the “black book” part always seemed a bit too crime thriller novel to be true).
Click to expand...
Yep. As it turns out, the guy that all the most powerful predators in the world turned to for their horrifying sex crimes was pretty good at discretion. It’s almost as if that’s the reason these people turned to him.

There’s a pretty common logical fallacy where people expect the resolution of some massive event to match the scale of the event itself like it’s some work of fiction being written as we go. I think a lot of people have fallen victim to that with Epstein, and people like Bondi and Kash capitalized hard on it when they weren’t the ones reaponsible for handling it. I can’t say I’m disappointed to watch them reap what they sowed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top