No, you're bio. he/him
Joined December 2020
- Tweets36.6K
- Following753
- Followers481
- Likes284K
John retweeted
Hey Elon, how do you go from asking about the wildest party on Jeffrey Epstein’s child rape island to claiming you repeatedly refused invitations?
Because the DOJ released your emails, and holy shit my guy, you’ve still got some explaining to do.
November 2012.
Epstein asks how many people you’ll need helicopter transportation for. You say probably just you and Talulah Riley. Maybe we should ask her about this next.
Then you ask which night will have the wildest party.
The wildest fucking party.
On Jeffrey Epstein’s child rape island.
Four years after his conviction involving a minor.
What the absolute fuck were you thinking? You knew who this man was. Everyone knew. His criminal history wasn’t some closely guarded secret anymore.
And before the pedodefending cult seals start honking that an email isn’t proof of child rape, congratulations. You’ve discovered something nobody is disputing.
This is about judgment. Keep up.
Christmas Day 2012.
You tell Epstein you’ve been working yourself to the edge of sanity and want to let loose once your children go home.
You ask about parties. A peaceful island experience apparently isn’t what you’re looking for.
A socially awkward billionaire asking a convicted child sex offender where the real party is.
And we’re supposed to believe you were desperately avoiding him.
I’m not done Eggman.
December 2013.
You’re discussing another visit. Epstein offers dates. You ask when you should head to the island.
Then Epstein cancels because he has to remain in New York.
Even Jeffrey fucking Epstein couldn’t make time for you. Hilarious.
Yet years later, you publicly say that Epstein repeatedly tried to get you there, and you refused.
So which is it Eggman?
Were you avoiding him, or coordinating your Christmas schedule with him to go to child rape island?
Now SpaceX.
Released correspondence shows Epstein’s assistants arranging a February 2013 visit, including a scheduled lunch with you.
It’s always a lunch. I’m starting to wonder if “lunch” is code for child rape, but I digress.
Whether that “lunch” actually happened remains unclear. But in 2020, you denied Epstein ever toured SpaceX.
Which the fuck is it?
Now everyone’s favorite billionaire soap opera.
June 2025.
You and Trump are having your mean bitch public breakup. Delicious entertainment, admittedly.
Suddenly you post on X that Trump is in the Epstein files and suggest that’s why they haven’t been released.
“Oh snap!”, we all said simultaneously.
Finally, something I can believe.
But then you delete the accusation.
What’s that about?
Did you have evidence? Did somebody tell you something? Or were you throwing around one of the most inflammatory associations imaginable because you were pissed off at another billionaire?
And if you had evidence, why go quiet?
What changed?
That black eye?
Kissing the wall?
I’m curious Eggman.
You were perfectly comfortable invoking Epstein when it was politically useful to attack somebody else.
But when your own correspondence surfaced, suddenly we’re supposed to all appreciate how easily emails can be misinterpreted.
How convenient. Honestly, who believes this shit?
Now, none of this establishes that you visited Epstein’s island or participated in his crimes.
Maybe you were going on adult night. Maybe you changed your mind. Maybe you’re too much of a fat chud loser for Epstein to follow through.
But even still, the emails are real, and the questions are totally legitimate.
I don’t give a fuck about your rockets, implants, electric cars, or bank account.
Your cultsheep have convinced themselves that your accomplishments make you incapable of dishonesty.
They don’t bro.
You corresponded with a convicted child sex offender, discussed partying on his child rape island, and later portrayed yourself to us as someone who repeatedly refused to go.
I call BULLSHIT.
You demanded answers about everyone else’s connection to Epstein.
Your turn.
We’re not letting this go.
John retweeted
Aust held numerous parliamentary inquiries to see if human trafficking was "legit."
Parliament couldn't figure out if kidnapping & selling humans counted as slavery.
The politicians leading the investigations were the same ones buying the Pasifika Islanders being auctioned off.
John retweeted
Will AUKUS Keep us safe - and at what cost ❗️
IN FULL: Peter Garrett AM FTSE and Chris Barrie AC RAN (Ret’d) Address t... youtu.be/1zSLKY-WOqQ?si=m_EY… via @YouTubeWi
John retweeted
I truly appreciate any help, may that be a donation or by simply sharing. Our family are needing just a bit of help in what has been such a traumatic time. gofundme.com/f/please-help-i…
John retweeted
Yes! Genocide is back on! Thanks Americans!
patreon.com/posts/174418536?…
John retweeted
The list: davemanuel.com/us-military-i…
John retweeted
Warning, this post contains the image of an Indigenous Person who has passed away.
Today we remember the talent and determination of Aunty Oodgeroo Noonuccal.
Photo: Oodgeroo Noonuccal at Moongalba ;Sourced from the National Portrait Gallery. Taken by Juno Gemes.
John retweeted
The Government™ has made an ad about the protests happening around the world, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative.🌍🌎🌏
John retweeted
The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has backed in my bills to end shackling of people giving birth and children being strip searched.
The UN have condemned the Albanese government for blocking them.
The Prime Minister needs to step up and stop this violence.
This Labor government is happy to pat themselves on the back for signing up to UN agreements, but they do nothing to actually implement them. It’s just performative.
abc.net.au/news/2026-10-27/u…
John retweeted
The United Nations has "expressed concern" over the blocking of two bills calling for a ban on the shackling of women during childbirth and the strip-searching of children.
nit.com.au/27-10-2026/27180/…
John retweeted
The Tasmania Commission of Inquiry had 191 recommendations.
Its most pressing recommendation was the urgent closure of AYDC.
This was set to close by the end of 2024 as promised by former premier Peter Gutwein.
The pictured Roger Jaensch was the children's service minister at the time.
How many child abuse reports that was submitted to Jaensch by former AYDC worker @Lyshrose that were never actioned by Roger the dodger, let alone referred to TasPol on his watch?
John retweeted
I've a poem in the newly released For Gaza anthology (HarperCollins India) of international writers & poets. Unfortnunelty, it's currently only available through Am*z*n. But a percentage of sales goes to a Palestinian charity
harpercollins.co.in/product/…
John retweeted
You done yet? Total disgrace, trying to turn this country into something it has never been before. boganintel.com/p/the-dogs-of…
John retweeted
I know you know this picture. All adult people who've carried some of the pain of this world for others do. 58 years ago this month, three men stood on an Olympic podium in Mexico City.
Two of them, courageous to a level most people will never reach or even aspire to reach, became famous for raising their fists.
The third didn't raise his fist.
But he knew exactly what was happening.
16 October 1968.
The Olympic Games in Mexico City.
The United States is being torn apart by racial conflict. Martin Luther King has been murdered six months earlier. Black Americans are still fighting for rights that other Americans take for granted.
Two American sprinters, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, have just won gold and bronze in the 200 metres.
Between them stands a 26-year-old white Australian called Peter Norman.
Norman has run the race of his life.
He's won SILVER, beating Carlos, one of the overwhelming favourites.
His time of 20.06 seconds is so astonishing that it will remain the Australian national record for another 56 years.
He should be thinking about his medal, his future, the applause, the extraordinary doors that might open for him.
But Smith and Carlos have something else on their minds.
They're planning to protest racial injustice during the medal ceremony.
In front of the entire world.
And they tell Norman what they're going to do.
Norman is Australian.
The American civil rights movement isn't his fight.
He could simply stand there, smile politely, collect his silver medal and go home.
Nobody would ever know that he had been given an opportunity to demonstrate moral courage and declined it.
But Norman asks the Americans what he can do to help.
And he tells them:
"I'll stand with you."
There's a practical problem.
Smith and Carlos have planned to wear black gloves, but Carlos has forgotten his pair.
Norman suggests something beautifully simple.
Why don't they share the remaining pair?
One glove each.
That's why, in the famous photograph, Smith raises his RIGHT fist and Carlos raises his LEFT.
The Australian also finds himself an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge.
He pins it to his tracksuit.
And the three men step onto the podium.
The American national anthem begins.
Smith and Carlos bow their heads and raise their fists.
Norman stands beside them.
A small white man in an Australian tracksuit, wearing a tiny badge.
It doesn't look particularly spectacular.
No shouting.
No violence.
No great revolutionary speech.
Just three men saying, in their own ways, that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings.
And the sporting establishment goes NUTS.
Smith and Carlos are expelled from the Games.
They're denounced, threatened and treated as traitors for daring to make people uncomfortable during a sporting event.
Norman returns to Australia.
His country has its own ugly history of racial exclusion, particularly concerning its Indigenous population.
And there are plenty of Australians who aren't particularly thrilled that their Olympic silver medallist has associated himself with two Black American protesters.
Norman encounters hostility and ostracism in parts of the sporting world.
Four years later, he isn't selected for the Munich Olympics.
Norman never repudiates what he did.
Peter Norman dies in 2006, aged 64.
At his funeral in Melbourne, two men have travelled all the way from America.
Tommie Smith.
John Carlos.
The two Black American athletes he had supported 38 years earlier.
And they carry his coffin.
Carlos told the mourners that Norman hadn't stood in front of them or behind them.
He had stood WITH them.
In 2012, the Australian Parliament finally apologised for Norman's treatment and its failure to recognise his courage while he was alive.
Forty-four years after the protest.
Six years after the man was dead.
One day governments will offer apologies to journalists sacked for holding Israeli officials' feet to the fire.
Hopefully before they die.
John retweeted
The Colony Has Deliberately Siloed First Nations Culture youtu.be/MtMaFOHjEQw?si=GSMA… via @YouTube
John retweeted
To all the people chanting “I stand with Ukraine”, @HavryshkoMarta asks a simple question:
“Are you standing with the Ukrainian people — or merely with the Ukrainian state?”
When the State Demands Your Life, Do You Still Have the Right to Resist?
Dear Western “Stand With Ukraine” crowd,
You repeat it like a sacred mantra: “Ukraine has the right to resist Russian aggression.”
Very well.
But let me ask you a question you seem remarkably unwilling to confront:
Does a human being have the right to resist, too?
Does a man have the right to resist when armed men in military uniforms descend upon him, seize him from his home, snatch him off the street, or drag him out of a hospital?
Does he have the right to resist when he is forced into an unmarked van, subjected to a sham medical examination, and declared fit for military service regardless of whether he is suffering from AIDS, tuberculosis, or cancer?
Does he have the right to resist when he is stripped of his freedom, his bodily autonomy, and his dignity — and dispatched to a battlefield to kill and to die?
Or does the sacred right to resistance suddenly evaporate when the aggressor wears the uniform of his own country?
Here is the moral contradiction at the heart of your solidarity: You passionately defend the right of a nation to resist coercion, yet seem prepared to look away when that same nation coerces the very people in whose name it claims to fight.
Why, in your moral universe, does an abstract political entity possess rights more sacred than those of a living, breathing human being?
Why should the sovereignty of a state outweigh the sovereignty of a person over his own body, his own conscience, and his own life?
A nation cannot bleed. A flag cannot feel pain. A state cannot experience terror, humiliation, or death.
Only human beings can.
And yet you appear willing to sacrifice the real human being upon the altar of the abstract nation — and call it freedom.
But freedom for whom?
What exactly are you defending when the individual becomes expendable, when human dignity is treated as a luxury, and when the state claims the ultimate authority to decide who must live and who must die?
Isn't this precisely the authoritarian logic that liberal democracy was supposed to reject?
And when the state is elevated above the individual, when obedience becomes more sacred than conscience, and when human lives become mere instruments of national destiny — how is that not the very logic of fascism?
You cannot credibly champion freedom from foreign tyranny while refusing to confront coercion exercised in freedom's name.
You cannot proclaim that Ukraine has the right to resist while denying that the Ukrainian individual has rights worth defending.
And you cannot claim to stand for human dignity if your compassion ends precisely where the demands of the state begin.
The ultimate measure of a free society is not how fiercely it defends its borders, but whether it remembers that the people living within those borders are human beings — not property of the state.
So I ask you again:
If Ukraine has the right to resist an aggressor, why shouldn't a Ukrainian have the right to resist those who come to take his freedom, his dignity, and potentially his life?
And if your answer is that the state must come first, then perhaps it is time to ask yourselves an uncomfortable question:
Are you standing with the Ukrainian people — or merely with the Ukrainian state?
