The laundering option doesn't make sense anymore cause it's so well known and you've opened yourself up to the irs.
It's instead a token to mask another transaction. A way to legitimise a transation for heinous things between rich people. "Oh sure I paid epstein $20m. It was for this art piece, isn't it great? If only I'd know about his misdeeds..." . The art or the money was never the point, the money wasn't initially dirty. The art is a cover they use to legitimise a transaction. Simply paying someone 20m for nothing rendered looks sus af, paying for some art though? All of a sudden it looks innocent.
They're not trying to clean their dirty money, they're trying to mask a transaction. The one who bought the art is the purchaser. Who can then gets a tax break by donating it to a museum sure (assuming they aren't looking to sell some evil services themselves), but that's just a discount on the purchase.
If they make the illigitimate transaction first, and then "sold" the art later, to the original person or someone else, then it would be money laundering, but if the two transactions occurred simultaneously, then it is instead an illegal transaction that included within it some legal goods. And if they sold the art first, then it's simply distribution of illegal things within a vaccuum. The chronology matters a lot.
The wordplay actually helps a great deal here: Money laundering is when you get dirty messy money, and then you clean up the money so its all nice and usable. Like sending a shirt to a laundry service. But that means there needs to be money to launder in the first place. A person who switches all their cash into bitcoin and then back into cash, THEN robs a bank, isn't laundering the stolen money, it came later.
And the rich and powerful know this. Why add extra liability to your actions? So they pre-purchase the inflated-price "legitimate" goods. Epstein infamously had that weird painting of Bill Clinton in underwear, it's probably an excellent example of such an item, since that item would never see open market sale to give a real valuation.
That is money laundering. You are taking money from an illegal transaction and laundering it (or you could say, "cleaning it for the books") with an art sale.
Is it a violation of Rule #2 to endorse a $7.3 million statue spontaneously combusting? Perhaps after impact with an asteroid, or semi-truck, I don't care how it happens.
It's like the bullshit "statue" to "Joe Louis" they put up in Detroit.
Everyone was looking forward to a nice, full-body statue of the Brown Bomber. Detroit actually has/had a lot of nice statues downtown, so Louis in a boxing pose would have been a nice addition to a decaying city. What they got was a Nigger Power fist instead. Well, at least it didn't have Hizzoner's name painted all over it.
Its not just a black nationalist symbol, its a communist symbol. Black Nationalism was subverted by communism a long time ago, which is why the "Back to Africa" movement died off despite being the best hope for a black ethnostate.
Who approved this? Comb the desert for them do you hear me? Comb the desert!
Thank goodness. I was hoping to see this.
That's Tuvok by the way.
More character development in that one clip than in 7 seasons of Voyager.
So, Lord Helmet, at last we meet again for the first time for the last time.
Even /pol/ couldn't have designed it better.
That added touch of graffiti in the backround. mwah
A peace sign with a clenched fist. I think that says more about their movement than they'd like.
Modern art is money laundering.
There's a far worse theory.
The laundering option doesn't make sense anymore cause it's so well known and you've opened yourself up to the irs.
It's instead a token to mask another transaction. A way to legitimise a transation for heinous things between rich people. "Oh sure I paid epstein $20m. It was for this art piece, isn't it great? If only I'd know about his misdeeds..." . The art or the money was never the point, the money wasn't initially dirty. The art is a cover they use to legitimise a transaction. Simply paying someone 20m for nothing rendered looks sus af, paying for some art though? All of a sudden it looks innocent.
They're not trying to clean their dirty money, they're trying to mask a transaction. The one who bought the art is the purchaser. Who can then gets a tax break by donating it to a museum sure (assuming they aren't looking to sell some evil services themselves), but that's just a discount on the purchase.
I thought that was a FORM of money laundering, but yeah, that makes sense.
It is indeed. Instead of paying they "donate" art.
It is grey area, from what I understand.
If they make the illigitimate transaction first, and then "sold" the art later, to the original person or someone else, then it would be money laundering, but if the two transactions occurred simultaneously, then it is instead an illegal transaction that included within it some legal goods. And if they sold the art first, then it's simply distribution of illegal things within a vaccuum. The chronology matters a lot.
The wordplay actually helps a great deal here: Money laundering is when you get dirty messy money, and then you clean up the money so its all nice and usable. Like sending a shirt to a laundry service. But that means there needs to be money to launder in the first place. A person who switches all their cash into bitcoin and then back into cash, THEN robs a bank, isn't laundering the stolen money, it came later.
And the rich and powerful know this. Why add extra liability to your actions? So they pre-purchase the inflated-price "legitimate" goods. Epstein infamously had that weird painting of Bill Clinton in underwear, it's probably an excellent example of such an item, since that item would never see open market sale to give a real valuation.
That is money laundering. You are taking money from an illegal transaction and laundering it (or you could say, "cleaning it for the books") with an art sale.
"All Power To All People" - chooses an object only niggers use. This is why niggers fail at everything.
A hammer and sickle seemed to be a bit too obvious.
His next piece: a pack of half-empty menthols and a positive pregnancy test.
https://www.thefirsttv.com/nice-pick-new-orleans-mayor-shares-pic-of-giant-afro-comb-juneteenth-art-installation/
Hmm there's people in our city who need our help and we have over $7.6 million dollars to spend in support of them.
Yup, you guessed it, it's giant $7.6 million hair comb statue time.
Looks like a freudian slip, their ideology will put all people behind bars.
Looks like an upside-down gay menorah.
The height of African American culture
The absurdity of niggers on full display
Is it a violation of Rule #2 to endorse a $7.3 million statue spontaneously combusting? Perhaps after impact with an asteroid, or semi-truck, I don't care how it happens.
one of the stupidest things she's ever seen.... so far.
It's like the bullshit "statue" to "Joe Louis" they put up in Detroit.
Everyone was looking forward to a nice, full-body statue of the Brown Bomber. Detroit actually has/had a lot of nice statues downtown, so Louis in a boxing pose would have been a nice addition to a decaying city. What they got was a Nigger Power fist instead. Well, at least it didn't have Hizzoner's name painted all over it.
Windsor kind of took is as a big "FUNGOOLA!"
There're more than enough talent out there to create any kind of statue you can think of. They're doing this on purpose.
Its not just a black nationalist symbol, its a communist symbol. Black Nationalism was subverted by communism a long time ago, which is why the "Back to Africa" movement died off despite being the best hope for a black ethnostate.