We're really gonna claim Epstein is the same as your monkey brain seeing shadows on the moon huh? We're also not supposed to notice you're consistently gunt guard for Jews in every thread you find huh?
Read what I'm actually saying. I'm not defending Jews, Mossad, or any other intelligent agency, I'm stressing one thing only: have
standards.
If you have a hypothesis/conclusion, and want to prove it, you need to make sure every piece of evidence and argument you make to support the conclusion holds up to individual scrutiny. Have an argument, then attack it yourself first, refine it thereafter in response to your own counterarguments, and
then present it.
It's not setting a criteria that makes everything/anything impossible to prove, arguably you can argue
anything to be correct if you use a good quality argument with substantiated points, but if you create an argument that is supported by a lot of weak, shitty points, then it can be torn apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny.
"Epstein was Mossad." (Hypothesis)
"Proof?"
"State department in the USA leased him property." (Evidence)
"What if he knew someone personally in the state department instead, considering he was familiar with senators and politicians?"/"If this was done via pressuring from Mossad or someone powerful in the state department, why did they revoke his lease at all?"/"Why exactly is
that proof of Mossad connections? To what end?/ If Mossad was used to get him premium property at a bargain wouldn't that be equally proof that Epstein has Mossad by the goolies?"
If you're going to argue Epstein was Mossad, use pieces of evidence which don't make the overall theory look weak. If you think you have a piece of evidence for something, pick apart that evidence yourself until it's in sufficient enough state to join other pieces. If the evidence doesn't survive your own sniff test, then don't use it. If it's weak in a few places, you can use it, just make sure you have rejoinders for the weak spots in it you're already aware of.
TLDR: Few, higher quality arguments/pieces of evidence > Lots of low quality arguments/pieces of evidence
That more or less goes for everything. A contrarian position which is disliked by those it targets is not automatically proof of the argument's correctness. That's something called an unfalsifiable argument, which a lot of people can
tell is such an argument but they don't often know the name for it.
"You're a pedo."
"No I'm not."
"See, denying it means you are."
This is one such example.
Actual pieces of what I consider "good" evidence for Epstein's possible Mossad connections to make up for 1 I personally consider bullshit:
(1) He helped broker security agreements for Israel to sell military and surveillance technology to both Mongolia and the Ivory Coast. This was revealed via
leaked emails with a former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak.
(Counter-point: It doesn't prove he's Mossad, private individuals have done such work for governments before.)
(2)
Ari Ben-Menashe, former Mossad agent, claims Epstein spied on the rich and powerful in order to blackmail them. Whilst he doesn't assert Epstein was employed directly, he links Epstein to Mossad via Maxwell's father.
(p49, Epstein: Dead men tell no tales)
Counterpoint: Whether Maxwell's father was actually Mossad is possibly contentious/speculation and it's mostly the enthused theory of an author called Martin Dillon. (It's ironic that supposed Mossad agents aren't immune from having their deaths attributed to Mossad.)
(p48, Epstein: Dead men tell no tales)
The book also has an origin story for Trump's eventual association with Epstein:
(Yes, the book can also act as a source for arguing Trump has connections to Mossad via Ghislaine Maxwell's father but that's another argument which requires it's own set of arguments to justify. It can just as easily be argued Trump has connections to Arabian arm's dealers)
It similarly highlights how the Clintons formed a connection:
(Any questions posed do not immediately conclude in "yes" answers, just a forewarning - these sorts of books tend to do that because they don't explicitly answer the question themselves so you decided whether the presented evidence is strong enough to conclude the question as a "yes" is ultimately up to you.)
