To all the scumbags.

If you are anywhere on the lolita flight logs or the island, I don't care what your excuse is. You are child raping scum. Quick death would be better than what you deserve.

It includes practically every big name that is known in the household. The only people I want to hear from now days are the ones that simply don't have any history there. I don't care who claims they "just didn't know"

And anyone who thinks this whole thing will go down with no violence.

That's like wanting to win the basketball game but "oh wait. It can't happen if the ball touches the rim." Sorry but it's time to get real.

Just watch the Earth's Defense project, especially what Aziz saw. There is no defense without the use of force.

Mostly I read this as a kind of public therapy of working psychologically to process what you've been reading on Epstein & Co.

But, in your imagination here, what are you going to do with the souls after you kill the bodies? Since most of the bodies (human or otherwise) are likely bound to the entity and the ancient technology they've been feeding with those sacrifices.

Won't the "quick death" just strengthen the entity itself?

Won't your rage also feed it?

Wasn't the prison matrix designed to harvest all dissent and rebellion?

@Amalynn:

"Won't the 'quick death' just strengthen the entity itself?"

No, because the ISBE that was killed must get a new body, which can be difficult or even impossible at that time. It's also a question of priorities: If the ISBE is attacking another ISBE, killing the attacker could be the only way to stop the attack. Think of the body as a weapon. Killing the body means to disable the weapon.

"Won't your rage also feed it?"

No. Evil entities feed on desperation and petty anger. They need the victim to be weaker or unable to defend itself. But if the anger/rage of the victim leads to an effective defense, the evil being is not happy about that. It can even fall into despair when its attack doesn't yield the expected result.

"Wasn't the prison matrix designed to harvest all dissent and rebellion?"

No. As I said, they harvest desperation. They allow rebellions only as long as they can control the outcome. If they lose the control over the outcome, the battles will become more fierce.

@Amalynn:

With your objection to my argument, you're essentially saying that if an ISBE has bound itself to another ISBE through rituals or contracts, it can get a second body in no time when being killed (because my argument was that the ISBE needs time to get a new body).

So, how does it work? Will the new body manifest instantly?

My rage aside (yes I could totally see myself being a rampaging murderer in some life or another, one wonders)

My only critique is the use of words "all" and "none" using complex societal systems. I'm guilty of the first application here.

The semantic I introduce: all people associated with epstein - the lolita express airplane or the island - deserve a death (often probably not a swift one). I get how courtney said death just frees the ISBE from the body so you have to wonder how much punishment is that really.

Anyways the critique I understand and expect is: "tazz what a sweeping statement. Adding a violent proposition to an entire group" ... and here is the somewhat problematic addition

"Doesn't the matrix" (we'll call it the "evil matrix" for simplicity here) "doesn't the evil matrix thrive on *all* violent act and thought?" It's the all that I would build caution on.

The core of my argument there is: "maybe my all is better than your all"

And I'm prepared to admit that all becomes semantic nonsense.

Anyways kill em. I'm pretty much sitting on one side of that fence for now.

Tazz wrote:

> The semantic I introduce: all people associated with epstein - the lolita express airplane or
> the island - deserve a death (often probably not a swift one). I get how courtney said
> death just frees the ISBE from the body so you have to wonder how much punishment is
> that really.

This may surprise you or not, but you aren't suggesting something new.

This was the ethical decision faced millennia ago by the Judahites when using the 'Arc of the Covenent' against the Baalists in Israel. Thousands of years ago.

The questions were "Do we use this weapon against those Baalists?" knowing that they will be killed?

The same question is asked in Israel still, almost every day.

It's actually on the News every night - "How does the USA/Israel handle the problem of the Baalists/Islam?", do we save them? or try to eliminate it given that they have failed every
chance to reform.

That's weird though are you sure? There's a quote from netanyahu criticizing Iran for burning a statue of Baal and then he called it an act of war.

@Amalynn:

"What I was offering was really only questions to consider."

You asked whether a quick death would strengthen the entity that is being killed. I answered that being killed means that the ISBE needs to get a new body. This is a disadvantage for that ISBE, and an advantage for the victim if the ISBE was killed to stop an attack. So no, killing the body doesn't strengthen the ISBE.

You then objected that it's "not true that an entity that is killed must get a new body". You are technically correct, the killed ISBE doesn't have to get a new body. But it needs to get a new body if it wants to continue the attack.

Even if the ISBE could replace the body easily, it would take time to do so. This opens a time window for the helpers to rescue the victims. For example, in the Earth's Defense project, Aziz saw how military raided an event where children were tortured by evil people. They shot them without hesitation, thus creating the opportunity to free the children.

This is a good thing.