Refuting "Refuting Epstein Denial"

It is very easy for me to attack Epstein maximalists. Candace Owens is a low-IQ schizophrenic; the supposed “survivors” are prostitutes; Dave Smith is a House Jew who does not read.

But David Zsutty is handsome. This allows me to focus on his arguments rather than the ad hominem I throw at other cretins.

only handsome people should be allowed to speak in the forum

Let’s break this down:

Zsutty is very ambiguous from the start. According to Zsutty, some people claim that there is no hard evidence. Zsutty: is there hard evidence? How are you defining hard evidence? Hard evidence of what?

Nick Fuentes specifically has said, time and time again, that Jeffrey Epstein was an agent of the Israeli government who sexually blackmailed powerful men with underage girls on behalf of Israel. By throwing Nick Fuentes in with these list of “Epstein deniers,” Zsutty is implying that Nick Fuentes is part of a cover-up. Of what, exactly?

To be fair, Nick Fuentes says different things at different times. I don’t want to quibble too much about this — just to point out that Zsutty is engaged in maximalist rhetoric here.

Zsutty makes two claims:

• Epstein’s sentence was unusually lenient, which is evidence of a government cover-up.

• The prosecutor refused to take his own side, which is evidence that he threw the case.

First of all, Zsutty’s logic is working in reverse. The reason why the plea deal was “lenient” is because the case against Epstein was profoundly weak. It involved adult prostitutes, as well as serial liars, drug users, and schizophrenics. The main witness. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, was profoundly unstable and unreliable. She contradicted herself pathologically. In order to secure a conviction, the state had to work with Epstein to negotiate a deal. Otherwise, there is a strong case to be made that the state would have failed to secure a conviction entirely.

Second of all, by refusing to actually engage with the primary sources, Zsutty leaves much up to interpretation. When he says that the prosecutor undermined his own witnesses, what does he mean? If the evidence is unsealed, why not present it here? I fear that Zsutty is giving a second hand account. If he has read the primary sources, I invite him to quote exactly, so that we can scrutinize and interpret accordingly. Otherwise, he is just vague posting.

Sometimes prosecutors are forced, in the course of a case, to admit the unreliability of their own witnesses, either by order of the court, or in the course of proceedings. Obviously there are ways to do this tactfully, and there are ways to do this that we would find suspicious. The only way to determine the details is to release the quotes. Be specific as to what pages and sentences you are referring to.

No one has time to go through 3 million Epstein files. If you have evidence or proof, you have to give exact quotes. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant, to go chasing rabbit holes. If you’re not willing to do this, you can be dismissed.

Zsutty claims that Epstein abused 30 minor girls. How, and in what manner? Did he have sex with them? If so, say that: Epstein raped 30 girls. If that is not what you are alleging (because there is no evidence of that) then be specific.

Annie Farmer, for example, in her testimony, claimed that she was abused by the act of “hand holding.” Yes, she was asked, “in what way did Epstein abuse you?” and she listed “hand holding.” She also claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell, who has a goyish mother (and is thus not Jewish under halakhah) was a Jewish supremacist, and that Epstein was a shape-shifting demon.

The term abuse, therefore, is meaningless. Zsutty prefers ambiguous words because they provide him with two advantages:

1. It allows the reader to insert whatever level of credulity they desire (ranging from Moloch child sacrifice to hand holding);

2. It allows Zsutty to escape the burden of proof. He never has to prove anything; by hiding behind the vague category of “abuse” he can never be pinned down on anything.

I should note that Zsutty is a lawyer; if you distrust lawyers because they are trained to make specious arguments, you should exercise skepticism.

Finally, Zsutty claims that Epstein was charged with “sex trafficking,” and implies that “sex trafficking” is identical to pimping, which is the act of facilitating sex between two or more parties. Pimping requires a pimp, a prostitute, and a John. Therefore, Zsutty implies that since Epstein was a kiddie-pimp, there must be kiddie-Johns who are raping kiddie-prostitutes.

This is false. That is not how the government defines “sex trafficking.” “Sex trafficking” only requires two parties: the John and the prostitute. In this case, Epstein was the John, and there was no pimping going on.

Zsutty hides behind woke euphemisms like “sex trafficking”; because his goal is to obscure, not to reveal. He is a word magician.

Zsutty then claims that if Epstein deniers were serious, they would raise money for Ghislaine Maxwell. I would be happy to do this personally, except that I am poor. I do not believe that any of the people who are Epstein deniers are very rich. The money is all on the side of the maximalists, who are getting multi-million dollar payouts and Elon-bucks from their salacious tweets.

Epstein maximalism pays the bills. Denialism does not.

All I can do is dedicate my time and effort to the cause of Ghislaine Maxwell, which I have done extensively. I am happy to debate Zsutty. Claiming that deniers are not serious because we lack the funds (millions would be needed) to hire the lawyers to defend Ghislaine is an unserious joke.

Mercifully, Zsutty has linked the file he is referring to here. You can read it yourself:

Are we really supposed to believe that this is hard evidence that Epstein was having sex with 12 year old triplets? Seriously Zsutty, if that is your claim, don’t bury it in the links: state it up front. You believe, with your heart and soul, that there is a credible chance that Jeffrey Epstein was fucking 12 year old triplets and then killing them.

I hate to quote this, because it is so pornographic and graphic, but the gist is this: Zsutty takes as reliable “witness testimony” that claims that Epstein’s men were gang raping a child to death and stabbing her vagina. This is just so disgusting and evil — please Mr. Zsutty, if you believe this, say it with your chest. If not, stop with the shell game of guilty by implication.

Zsutty claims that if people are forced to resign over the Epstein panic, that means we know that the most salacious claims are true. That is false. That is not how moral panics work.

Zsutty ignores the role of Netanyahu and Israeli influence networks in promoting this panic. He ignores the Pizzagate playbook. We know how the Israelis operate: the make up false rumors, create a bunch of smoke, and achieve death by a thousand cuts.

These resignations are a result of opportunistic persecutions. Yes, they are strivers; they are all strivers. They know that it is easier to go quietly into the night than fight the panic head-on.

Strivers are not known for their courage or tenacity. They take the easy route. They will work as consultants, like Paul Manafort, eschewing the spotlight. Their cowardice in the face of adversity is not proof of Epstein maximalism.

Zsutty completely omits the fact that Ehud Barak was the enemy of Netanyahu, and that Maxwell died under mysterious circumstances in connection with Israel. This betrays either ignorance or an intention to withhold crucial information to avoid contradicting his predetermined narrative.

Conclusion

David Zsutty is riding a moral panic for the benefit of his white nationalist political project. He believes that by delegitimizing the mainstream and stoking the flames of antisemitism, he will “redpill the normies” into his coalition.

Zsutty is correct. By spreading lies and undermining trust in institutions, white nationalists will benefit. However, at the same time, Israel will also benefit, because Zionism cannot exist without antisemitism.

In this way, Zsutty is an agent of Israel, knowingly or unknowingly. His anti-American lies benefit Russia and China as well.

I suspect that even if I showed Zsutty hard evidence of the manner in which these foreign actors are fueling these rumors, he would still push them anyway. His goal is the breakup of the United States into Balkanized “ethnostates” — if that benefits our foreign enemies, so be it.

Addendum.

I chose to critique Zsutty because I think he represents the best that white nationalism has to offer: handsome and intelligent. Unfortunately, this is why I could not support white nationalism, even if race realism were true.

Let’s assume that I am wrong (I’ve written against it multiple times) and race realism is true. The implication is that white people are smart, altruistic, and honest, while non-white people are dumb, selfish, and nepotistic. Obviously, if America is swamped with non-whites, this will change the character of the country for the worse.

However, the threat of white nationalism ideologically is that it cannot help resist the seductive urge to ally with conspiracy theorists. Case in point: David Zsutty is allying with Candace Owens against Nick Fuentes. This behavior is a betrayal of America and much worse than the intergenerational effects of race mixing.

Race mixing, in the worst case, is a slow genetic degradation of the state. Treason and conspiracy mongering is a knife at our throat.

If David Zsutty, who is in the top 1% of white nationalists in terms of sanity and competence, cannot resist the urge to betray America, then there is no hope for that movement to produce anything good.