A Thai court has ordered the dissolution of the reformist party which won the most seats and votes in last yearā€™s election - but was blocked from forming a government.

The ruling also banned Move Forwardā€™s charismatic, young former leader Pita Limjaroenrat and 10 other senior figures from politics for 10 years.

The verdict from the Constitutional Court was expected, after its ruling in January that Move Forwardā€™s campaign promise to change royal defamation laws was unconstitutional.

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    Ā·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Thing is they technically can be, but are they ever? Epstein wasnā€™t a billionaire, he was in the crowd but he was nouveau riche, not truly considered one of them. This kind of gatekeeping shows just how much the wealthy deliberately maintain the class gap.

    And he was definitely a limited hangout: ā€œspy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admittingā€”sometimes even volunteeringā€”some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.ā€

    Itā€™s the phrase ā€œwhile still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the caseā€ that really describes whatā€™s happening here.

    Thatā€™s why he was killed - they couldnā€™t risk a high profile person like him talking. They hung out as much as they could afford, and with someone they didnā€™t really care about. It looked sus, but they really couldnā€™t afford more, so they just killed him.

    In fact, he taught the wealthyā€™s children and was seen to flout the boundaries with students and the dress code. He was plucked from there to start rubbing shoulders with the ultra rich and trafficking children for them. I wouldnā€™t be surprised if someone noticed his indiscretions, and decided that they could extract him from that environment, keep their own kids safe, and ply him with wealth to start exploiting children professionally. Then, if the whole scheme ever came down, they had a ready made fall guy.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Most billionaires are nouveau rich, if you meant that literally rather than figuratively. They tend to come from a kind of upper-middle or lower-upper class background, because families richer than that are rare, and families poorer donā€™t have a shot; itā€™s all a lottery at the end of the day.

      I think youā€™re attributing way too much organisation to them, honestly. Western politics runs on open secrets and raw shitty stupidity. This is as true behind closed doors as well; I donā€™t know any billionaires, but Iā€™ve rubbed up against politicians and church leaders plenty.

      Somebody paid off a couple prison guards to kill Epstein. I canā€™t prove it, but it just seems logical. I donā€™t know who it was, but there were many candidates. I see no reason it would have been more than one.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        3 months ago

        Yes, it is a lottery, but within their ranks there are those accepted as ā€œone of themā€ and those considered ā€œnouveau richeā€. If you look at that article I linked, he was a teacher at a prep school who lied about his qualifications, drank with the students and walked around the halls with a fur coat and gold chains with his shirts hanging open. Regardless of his familyā€™s wealth - it doesnā€™t sound like it was that much - he was being gauche. He was acting like the nouveau riche that the wealthy look down on. Most of the very wealthy are people you never hear of and thatā€™s intentional; they stay out of the public eye because theyā€™ve seen what happens to the rich & powerful when revolutions happen. They canā€™t stay totally hidden, but they prefer privacy.

        And Iā€™m not saying the wealthy acted as a united bloc to hire him and then dump him. I said ā€œsomeoneā€ might have done that. Iā€™m sure it wasnā€™t all planned out by some shadowy group, but itā€™s pretty straightforward to imagine a strategy of deniability, where he buys his way into the inner circle by taking on all the risk and doing the dirty work of trafficking minors. He might have known that his head would be on the block if the network was ever compromised, but that would be a trade he was willing to make for access to billionaire-adjacent levels of wealth and a steady stream of underage girls.

        And the idea that it was just Epstein and Maxwell doing all the dirty work by themselves is laughable. There was definitely a network in place to enable their work, and powerful people above them providing cover. The entire ruling class who they were buddy-buddy with were complicit to some extent. The idea that that network simply disappeared or dissolved when those two were arrested is also ridiculous. I would bet any amount of money that the network that trafficked those girls barely paused its operation. They hung out Maxwell to dry and buried Epstein, and they carried on doing what they do. Anyone in the network who acts a little too indiscreet can probably be hung out, but anyone being smart about operating a network like that would be recruiting people to act as middle men purely to provide a buffer and ensure they themselves donā€™t end up twisting in the wind. The fact that Epstein was crass and gauche makes him the perfect fall guy, because everyone goes, ā€œOh yeah, that guy, he was always a creep.ā€

        And yes, somebody did a covert operation to kill Epstein. I canā€™t ā€œproveā€ it either but there is no way that didnā€™t happen. Someone made the call and a small group wouldā€™ve carried it out. There are any number of people who would do that and ways to get it done. The wealthy have access to private armies who hire ex-intelligence operatives, they would have absolutely no trouble with it. You donā€™t need a huge conspiracy for that to happen, but the entire structure of capitalism relies on diffuse responsibility and layers of deniability. The ruling class donā€™t get their hands dirty as a rule.

        So for instance Intel, Apple, NVidia, AMD and so on are profiting off of coltan mining in Africa, where child labour is rife and the death rate is prodigious. However, if the layers of bureaucracy, corruption, bribery and corporate shell games ever allowed someone to be held accountable for how many kids they fed into a meat grinder to get their precious metals, then the person who would go to prison would be a mine operator in Africa or maybe an executive who interfaced directly with the mines. It wouldnā€™t be the shareholders of the companies who are demanding the coltan.

        Thatā€™s not a covert conspiracy, but the basic principle of putting middle-men in between you and the awful things youā€™re doing is still there, itā€™s a tried-and-true method.

        Now, trafficking children so the wealthy can personally molest them is something that inherently cannot be diffused. Those individual people are doing the molesting. So that means this particular part of the operation does have to be covert. We know itā€™s covert because we mostly only have speculation about who was actively molesting and who was just given a ride on a private jet. We also know itā€™s covert because Epstein was killed to cover it up. We know for a fact that multiple former US presidents were on the list and they were rapey kinda guys, plus there is direct testimony of Trump forcibly raping a 13-year old if memory serves.

        Thatā€™s sort of an open secret, but also thereā€™s obviously a lot of it being hidden. Of course itā€™s being hidden. The wealthy are terrified of having their heads cut off. The extraordinary thing in this instance would be if there wasnā€™t a covert conspiracy.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          then the person who would go to prison would be a mine operator in Africa or maybe an executive who interfaced directly with the mines.

          Honestly even thatā€™s ambitious. The really dangerous mines with lots of forced or child labour are artisanal ones run by small-time gangsters. Roughly speaking, they sell to some sort of local fence, who sells to a regional company theyā€™re connected with, who sells to a national subsidiary that can maintain a rough appearance of propriety when the guys from Apple Silicon come to visit. Every once in a while a journalist traces the chain from end to end, and the Western company says ā€œthatā€™s horrible, we had no ideaā€ with as straight a face as they can muster and cuts out all involved players immediately. Itā€™s a big branching network, though, so thereā€™s lots of people to pick up the slack. Maybe somebody goes to jail, but the rest will slip away and may well start up a new operation thatā€™s the exact same thing.

          The sad thing is, I donā€™t know if it can work any other way. Apple could never openly sign off on the conditions that are just standard in poor countries (actually, wasnā€™t there a scandal exactly like that?), and nobodyā€™s about to give distant brown people free ergonomic equipment for their sweatshops. If you want poor countries to get on the development path, this is the deal basically, and slavery and other awful things tend to slip in along with that.

          The wealthy are terrified of having their heads cut off.

          Terrified might be overselling it. Thatā€™s like saying ordinary Westerners are terrified of nuclear warfare. Sure, it scares them, but do they really viscerally believe itā€™s not just a thing on TV?

          Iā€™m reminded of that article where the author gets called in for a consultation with hedge fund guys about bunker planning, and theyā€™re asking if, like, they can force their guards to obey them with shock collars. Hopefully you can tell how dumb that is. They donā€™t know what they donā€™t know, and have had smoke blown up their ass by wannabes for so long they wonā€™t until itā€™s too late.

          The extraordinary thing in this instance would be if there wasnā€™t a covert conspiracy.

          I think it is extraordinary, but I also think I have a pretty good picture of how it works. Itā€™s more sad than dramatic.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I think our disagreement here is pretty narrow, about how covert the coverup really is. But when you say you ā€œhave a pretty good picture of how it works,ā€ I have to ask if you know anything about who is currently supplying children for the ultra-wealthyā€™s sexual entertainment. If you donā€™t know, if itā€™s not generally known, then I think that means there is a covert network that does its best to stay hidden.

            If you think thatā€™s somehow no longer happening any more, then I think you really donā€™t understand how the world works. People like that do not give up their indulgences easily.

            You may simply think Iā€™m ascribing more planning and coordination than I really am, and that would just be a miscommunication. However, I do think there are definitely some small number of people who put a lot of thought into how to get away with this, and theyā€™ve largely succeeded for decades.

            A journalist could get to the bottom of the coltan mining trade and expose one chain there, but how do you think theyā€™d fare exposing the latest Epstein-style network? Do you think theyā€™d live through it?

            Honestly even thatā€™s ambitious.

            Yeah, thatā€™s true, but my point was even in the worst-case scenario that consequences really did happen to someone, it would be a middleman, and thatā€™s by design. Epstein was no different in that respect.

            Sure, it scares them, but do they really viscerally believe itā€™s not just a thing on TV?

            There was a guy on some news network around 2020 when people were panicking about Bernie Sanders and his nefarious communist plot to destroy America, and one guy was talking about how there was a time when he was really scared the communists would come in and kill all the rich people and he mightā€™ve been one of those people strung up in Times Square. He certainly sounded terrified to me. Like Iā€™m sure it was partly crocodile tears, but also you donā€™t pull that story from nowhere. Thatā€™s obviously something he thinks about.

            I mean, I wouldnā€™t say Iā€™m always actively terrified of being hit by a train, but I take steps to avoid it. Thatā€™s what I mean - they know itā€™s a threat.

            If you want poor countries to get on the development path, this is the deal basically, and slavery and other awful things tend to slip in along with that.

            This is tangential, but itā€™s my biggest issue with what youā€™ve said. Poor countries all over the globe are made and kept poor by colonialism which rolled into modern capitalist imperialism. Africa in particular has been particularly brutally invaded, pillaged and oppressed for centuries. The most recent mechanisms by which this is done have been the World Bank and the IMF sucking them into predatory loans with structural adjustment policies that are calculated to keep them poor and strip them of vital infrastructure.

            The cheap labour isnā€™t some natural transitional state between ā€œundevelopedā€ and ā€œdevelopedā€. It is an imposed condition, and the only time such countries ā€œdevelopā€ and improve their station is when the working class organises and forces change to happen. It is never handed down from above or a natural outworking of wealth flowing in from the market. The market is structured to ensure that any wealth that flows in from the exploitation of cheap labour is kept in the hands of a few and siphoned back out as quickly as possible.

            This is very similar to the way that the working class is kept in a state of poverty by capitalists within their own countries, and oppressed by the state and the legal system. This is the situation that allows wealthy people to prey upon the children of poorer people with relative immunity. The girls are often plied with money, and if they do go to the police, what do they say? ā€œTrump raped me on Epsteinā€™s private jet?ā€ The cops wonā€™t touch that, and the wealthy know they wonā€™t touch it. We know it because that testimony exists and it hasnā€™t gone anywhere. Even if a detective took the case, heā€™d wind up at the bottom of a river before too long.

            Iā€™m not saying this is a ā€œconspiracyā€ in the sense that this entire situation is engineered just to get young girls, itā€™s evolved over centuries to maintain power, and the powerful will take advantage of it every way they can.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I have to ask if you know anything about who is currently supplying children for the ultra-wealthyā€™s sexual entertainment

              I donā€™t expect there is such an open practice, to be clear. I donā€™t really buy the pizzagate stuff.

              Itā€™s not impossible there was a third coconspirator that got away. Itā€™s possible Epstein had competition, too, and of course itā€™s possible someone has taken his place. I donā€™t know which drug dealers billionares use, either, although Iā€™m pretty sure they donā€™t sit around discussing how to hide their collective drug use.

              The cheap labour isnā€™t some natural transitional state between ā€œundevelopedā€ and ā€œdevelopedā€. It is an imposed condition, and the only time such countries ā€œdevelopā€ and improve their station is when the working class organises and forces change to happen.

              I basically just disagree. The conventional economic interpretation makes plenty of sense, matches the figures and my anecdotal experiences, and places like South Korea have made this exact trip already.

              Thereā€™s neoimperialism too, but the difference it makes from our end amounts to pennies. If we can crush the corruption Africa will develop a bit faster, not overnight. When someone over there wants a computer, they go to the West to buy it, not because theyā€™re forced to but because they donā€™t have the infrastructure and institutional experience to build such a thing themselves.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                Ā·
                3 months ago

                Itā€™s fascinating to me that your example was South Korea. Thatā€™s literally the place I had in mind when I talked about the working class organising to better their lives. They have deeply militant unions.

                You know they had an honest to goodness general strike in 1997, right? And that they were specifically striking over laws that would legalise strikebreaking? Thatā€™s going to have a tectonic effect on the quality of life of workers in general. They fought hard for their pay increases and got them. Thatā€™s not attributable to market forces. Striking is literally a breakdown in market behaviour, where the bosses have squeezed so hard and so unfairly that the workers have to withdraw their labour in order to get what they need.

                And every single workerā€™s benefit we enjoy today was a function of labour activism. 8 hour days, the weekend, child labour laws, OSHA, I could go on. And all of those benefits are actively fought against by the ruling class because they erode their power over us and raise our wages.

                Also, orthodox economics is basically the managerial class being funded by the owning class to come up with post-hoc justifications for why they should keep their wealth. Itā€™s not scientific in the slightest. The Economist is basically neoliberal propaganda.

                Chomskyā€™s Manufacturing Consent goes into this in some detail, about the forces that act to ensure that the dominant media narrative caters to the ruling class on all levels, and he has talked extensively on how this process works in academia as well. I forget if the academic discussion is a large part of the documentary, but itā€™s well worth watching anyway. Itā€™s free on youtube: https://youtu.be/BQXsPU25B60

                Alsoā€¦ if you really think the Epstein network was just two or three peopleā€¦ I mean wow. You know authorities seized a bunch of blackmail from his island of rich people with kids, and it has never surfaced since?? The same aithorities that ruled his death a suicide, because theyā€™re doing their best, honest, but they just canā€™t seem to find that missing collective brain cell that would let them figure out the blindingly obvious. Was that the one guy arranging that too?

                Iā€™m not saying the ultra wealthy run the network themselves, thatā€™s what Iā€™ve literally been saying they donā€™t do. The difference is if they got caught actually doing the deed, if would be a very different matter, because they are literally involved.

                Oh and to answer your question about who their drug dealers are, they have middlemen for that as well. Personal assistants who are on call for anything the client needs, who will readily break the law rather than disappoint a client, and whose instructions are generally vague enough that any legal risk falls on the assistant. Again: diffusion of responsibllity.

                Donā€™t kid yourself, the society of the wealthy and powerful is rotten to the core, just as it was in the days of monarchy. They just have better cover for it nowadays. Itā€™s no longer the divine right of kings, but the invisible hand of the market.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Itā€™s fascinating to me that your example was South Korea. Thatā€™s literally the place I had in mind when I talked about the working class organising to better their lives. They have deeply militant unions.

                  You know they had an honest to goodness general strike in 1997, right? And that they were specifically striking over laws that would legalise strikebreaking? Thatā€™s going to have a tectonic effect on the quality of life of workers in general. They fought hard for their pay increases and got them. Thatā€™s not attributable to market forces. Striking is literally a breakdown in market behaviour, where the bosses have squeezed so hard and so unfairly that the workers have to withdraw their labour in order to get what they need.

                  It was a right-wing dictatorship up until that date, with the main union loyal to them. There was a reason so many sided with the North. Struggle against it later on took that shape of labour activism, which is interesting and new to me, but to say that industrialisation, which happened starting in the 60s, is due to labour organisation canā€™t be and isnā€™t correct. South Korean work hours are still famously insanely long, too.

                  Also, orthodox economics is basically the managerial class being funded by the owning class to come up with post-hoc justifications for why they should keep their wealth. Itā€™s not scientific in the slightest. The Economist is basically neoliberal propaganda.

                  As someone who actually understands a good chunk of it, no. Itā€™s a strong theory with strong predictions. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. That magazine is just magazine, not a journal or anything related to the field.

                  Those same authorities ruled his death a suicide, because theyā€™re doing their best, honest, but they just canā€™t seem to find that missing collective brain cell that would let them figure out the blindingly obvious.

                  Iā€™m not familiar with the law of the area, but donā€™t they have to be able to prove it in order to rule it a homicide? I donā€™t believe in conspiracy theories in general, and doubt Iā€™ll believe the one youā€™re proposing in specific until that changes.

                  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Which dictator do you mean? The democracy movement and the June struggle was in 1987, 10 years before the general strike.

                    Also, neoliberal capitalism is very, very happy with right wing dictators because they love oppressing workers and lowering wages. Just look at Pinochet in Chile.

                    And again the June struggle was won by popular struggle, not market forces. The idea that the unions supported the dictator is a weird one too. Like, where are you getting that, and is there any evidence they werenā€™t just yellow unions approved by the dictator?

                    Even then I donā€™t know why you brought those things up. You just added a bunch of details and I guess assumed those details - some of which were very wrong - were somehow in support of some point, but you didnā€™t say what that point is.

                    And I donā€™t know why you think Iā€™m talking about industrialisation when I talk about workers improving their lives. That is not at all what Iā€™m talking about. And industrialisation isnā€™t a capitalist thing, they just happen to coincide in human history. We donā€™t have alternative Earths to test the idea, so crediting the gains of industrialisation to the market and capitalism is weird. You just put that out there completely unsupported.

                    Thatā€™s another thing neoliberal economists love to do, just blame all the problems of capitalism on unions and regulations, and credit every good thing that happens on the glorious invisible hand.

                    And since you understand a good amount of economics, perhaps you can tell me what is the scientific basis of supply & demand for instance? Iā€™ve looked for this information and had people try to show me, but theyā€™ve never actually shown it. Itā€™s a fundamental part of economics so Iā€™m told. What is the science behind it? The perfectly straight, perpendicular bisecting lines on an unscaled graph do not suggest any scientific basis to me, they suggest the aesthetics of science devoid of its substance. If you could disabuse me of this notion then perhaps I could move on from my current woeful ignorance on the matter.

                    And finally, you donā€™t think thereā€™s any conspiracy around Epstein, fine. I bet itā€™s easy to maintain that idea when you just ignore all the evidence I gave you.