Can you prove a negative?
Reading some Wikileaks-related site:
Bla bla bla has PROOF that McMaster is a Soros operative!
First thought: Nearly everyone who reaches positions of power in USA STRONG is a Soros operative. You can't get power without Soros. I'd rather see proof that SOME FUCKING BODY is NOT a Soros operative.
Second thought: Nah. Can't prove a negative.
Third thought: Wait. Everyone says that, and I believed it until just now.
Fourth thought: You can
prove some negatives. Depends on the nature of the positive.
= = = = =
The traditional rule works beautifully when the positive is (1) physically possible and (2) not found in any recorded information. The positive event COULD have happened without being recorded, so the negative history doesn't tell you much.
When in an automotive mood I've been chewing on a hard-to-prove negative that fits the traditional model.
"There was never a pickup truck with an inline eight."
The positive is definitely possible. You could even argue that it SHOULD have happened, since many carmakers were turning out pickups during the same years when they offered a straight eight in cars. Why not give the trucks extra power as well? But as far as I can tell the combination never happened.
Ford is easy. Ford never made an inline eight at all. Dodge is hard because Dodge was making pickups during the four years ('30 to '33) when it had straight eights in cars. I've checked several books and online sources, and I'm pretty sure
it didn't happen. GMC is similarly hard. In the early years GMC trucks were not rebadged Chevies; they were based on Pontiac drivetrains, and Pontiac offered both straight sixes and eights. Again I can't find a recorded example. The nearest approach is Pontiac sedan deliveries in the early '50s, which could be bought with an 8. But a sedan delivery isn't a pickup. Willys, Studie and Hudson also fit the category, and again the books are pretty clear that pickups were always fours and sixes.
Result inconclusive, which is typical of the pattern.
= = = = =
Returning to the original question, "X never worked for Soros." Entirely different situation. When we're dealing with important or powerful people, their public actions and decisions are fully visible. We know what they do in each situation. If a public figure often
makes decisions that agree with Sorosian goals, he is objectively
working for Soros. If a public figure never
does anything Sorosian and often
acts directly contrary to Sorosian goals, he is objectively not
working for Soros.
In this case the negative is easier to prove than the positive. We have one perfect shibboleth which is easy to find and check. If a leader KICKS OUT SOROSIAN NGOs, he is NOT working for Soros.
No US leader has ever kicked out Sorosian NGOs, so all US leaders are objectively working for Soros. The leaders of the green countries on this map have actively kicked out Sorosian groups, so they are NOT working for Soros.
The violet countries have gone beyond objective
support to full omnicidal conspiracy with Soros.