Why the NYT is making an example of Harvey Weinstein ( pizzagate )

submitted by SoberSecondThought

I've started a new thread for this because I think the previous threads didn't adequately cover the possible motives.

In this very interesting piece , we see how Weinstein's behavior has been an open secret for decades. So why is the story only now making headlines? The author notes that Weinstein's film business hasn't been as successful, financially or critically, in the past few years; plus he is old and tired-looking. Then she decides that it's mostly because of feminism.

Well ... I don't doubt that feminism is a factor. I also think it's a factor that Ronan Farrow has made it his life's mission to expose pedos and abusers, and his New Yorker article was going to come out anyway, whether the NYT did a story or not.

However, that only compels the NYT to cover the story. It doesn't require a whole team, or months of their own research. In this previous thread , @Are_we_sure correctly observed that the NYT went far, far beyond the minimum here. (I don't care if you don't like @Are_we_sure . On this point he is correct.)

So why? I think this might be an important moment in the overall bring-down-the-pedos struggle.

We know that the senior staff at the NYT have a mandate to protect the deep state. They were chosen because of their pro-pedo, pro-abuse outlook; they excuse every insane thing the Clintons do, and commission pieces normalizing pedophilia. We also know that Harvey Weinstein is incredibly well connected, and still very powerful even if his films have slumped a bit.

I think this story sends a message to the entire pedo/abuser/deep state network. We know that they number in the tens of thousands. They include senior people at NASA and the CDC , state and municipal officials, ambassadors, and on and on. I think that many of these people hoped, back in the spring and summer, that somehow Mueller and the Russian thing would bring Trump down. But it hasn't, and won't. Now the NFL fiasco has proved, once again, that Trump has a very broad base of support. So this "struggle in the shadows" is going to go on for a good long while yet. Years.

I think the NYT decided it was time to impose a little bit of discipline on their rowdy crew of child rapists. I think they're making an example of Mr. Weinstein.

This is someone who donates millions to the Democrats, and crushes even semi-famous people who cross him. And he probably hasn't murdered anyone, or staged bizarre Satanic torture rituals in a basement somewhere; my impression is that he's just an asshole who doesn't care if a girl is actually 18 yet when he hits on her (and won't take no for an answer). Not that that's okay, it's just kind of small time by the standards we have learned to apply in Washington DC.

All this makes him an excellent example, a highly useful teaching tool in preparing for the next few years of chaos. This is a message to all those mid-level managers, sheriffs, lower court justices, and so on, who got promoted because they belong to the Royal Order of Jesters and have an ugly hobby. NOBODY is safe now. You CAN be sacrificed, and you will be sacrificed the moment you become more trouble than you're worth.

We'll know more as the story unfolds. Weinstein will try to kill it, to apologize and excuse and bluster and so on. But I'm guessing the NYT calculated the cost of standing up to him in advance, as did the New Yorker . If this story drags on through Christmas, then I think that means I'm right. They didn't do this because they wanted to; they did it because the continued existence of Trump, plus the citizen-investigator army, made it necessary.

And that is actually very good news for our side. Pat yourselves on the back, folks, and put a "W" in today's box scores.

Blacksmith21

One more thought - do you really think Weinstein, one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, passed up on all of the other, younger and more tantalizing fruits available to him?

I couldn't fathom for a second saying the things to a woman, much less in a professional capacity, just what is being publicly said. And you know there is far worse which will leak out.

Blacksmith21

@OP - Good analysis. I don't think the sheeple will be able to track, much less care about, the political pedos. But now you are messing with their "mental food". It will be interesting to see how they react with the New Yorker article hits. I believe they tend to be more riske than NYT. And what will PV be releasing? A nice coordinated attack on these bastards would be a nice follow up with a few more of these. Let's see what's next...

SecondAmendment

@Blacksmith21 I'm dying for Attorney Ronan Farrow's piece in The New Yorker. I focus on the fact that he is an attorney because I think it is important to note that a lawyer would not write a defamatory article. If anyone should know the laws of defamation it will be him. He will write it very carefully but, I predict, in keeping with his passion to shut these fuckers down. May I ask you a question? What does PV stand for?

Blacksmith21

Project Veritas.

SecondAmendment

Oh, THANKS, @Blacksmith21 ! We're all huge James O'Keefe fans here at HQ. I should've figured it out but I'm getting tired today, for some reason. Thanks for clarifying and thanks, also, for all your posts and insight here. You're one of da good guys! So many people here rock. I can't wait for a little justice. . . . Cheers.

Blacksmith21

Yeah man. We are all tired. Just keep your powder dry.

TrishaUK

(ff 27:30 mins) Great Tammy Bruce (Radio Talk Show Host) - Excellent summing up Clinton regarding Weinstein, must listen. - Tucker Carlson Tonight 10/6/17 - Tucker Carlson Fox News October 6, 2017 TRUMP, WEINSTEIN SCANDAL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMEwDhqO0Y&t=1939

paulf

Spot on. I would go even further and say that the NYT has been ordered to cover this by its real bosses for all the reasons you've laid out.

The_Real_Wahrheit

For me, I noticed this was about sexual issues with adults.

No need to expand to 3 year-olds.

EDIT: And oh so juicy, this should take us through Easter, let alone Christmas.

Are_we__sure

Hi. This is bonkers.

There's a much simpler reason you can't fit this story with your grand theory.

SoberSecondThought

It really isn't that complicated a theory. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church ran a similar organization that reached into practically every parish in the Western world, and managed to silence the victims for decades. We'll be cleaning up that mess for the rest of our lives. Since 2012, Mark Thompson has been the CEO at the NYT, and he very clearly covered up for Jimmy Savile when he was in charge at the BBC. This is a story that could cost the newspaper millions in a lawsuit, and they're bleeding cash already. So Mark Thompson signed off on this before it ran. And if he signed off, he had a reason.

I realize you don't agree, and by all means stay skeptical. There are plenty of claims in the Pedogate story that I don't believe either. This just isn't one of those difficult ones.

Are_we_sure

Thompson may be CEO, but it's the Chairman is the real power at the Times.

This is a story that could cost the newspaper millions in a lawsuit, and they're bleeding cash already.

This is just one of many non-sequiturs in your reply. It's a story that could cost them millions..... only if it's false. Did you ever think they published it because it's true and it's news. Why is it coming out now? They were able to get sources to go on the record (this also means they actually won't face a lawsuit. Harvey is threatening one, but everyone knows it's an empty threat.) The "news peg" for this story is they found out about a memo an employee wrote that detailed her not just her situation, but the situations of many women who worked there. So they had something to investigate. Why now? I'm guessing someone leaked them this memo. The NY Post is reporting that it might have been Bob Weinstein trying to push Harvey out of the company.

The simple reason you can't square this with your grand theory is one of them is taking place in the real world and the other is not.

We know that the senior staff at the NYT have a mandate to protect the deep state. They were chosen because of their pro-pedo, pro-abuse outlook; they excuse every insane thing the Clintons do,

You didn't read the New York Times in 2016 did you? or in the 1990s did you?

It really isn't that complicated a theory.

I didn't say your theory was complicated. It's the standard THEPOWERSTHATBE conspiracy theory. I said your theory was bonkers. And the simple reason you can't square this story with your theory is one is real and the other is not. In fact your fact theory is mutually incompatible with actual reality.

SoberSecondThought

Hm. Well, on the question of who is the "real power" at the NYT, I'm going to need something a little stronger than your word that Thompson doesn't have the power to kill or tone down a potentially costly story. Sure seems to me like he would.

On the question of whether it really is potentially costly -- Gawker was completely destroyed by a lawsuit (the Hulk Hogan thing) in which everything they had said was agreed to be true. The judgment was on whether they had the right to invade Hogan's privacy, which is bound to be raised as an issue here too. And it sometimes costs a lot to defend yourself even if you win. There's no guarantee that they'll be awarded costs.

As for the story that Bob Weinstein is behind it, well, sure, why not. I was already willing to concede that the original impetus for the story came from outside the NYT. I still think it may have been Ronan Farrow. Let's be clear here: I don't think the CIA controls the New Yorker , or the NY Post . I don't think there are CIA operatives at the crosswords desk of the NYT, or writing restaurant reviews. I'm simply noting a publicly documented fact: Ever since the 1970s, and Operation Mockingbird, it has been clear that elements within the U.S. government have been using major publications like the Washington Post and the NYT to shape the news. I think that before they run a major story, the NYT talks to certain people about the impact that it will have. And the reason I think that is because it has already been proven true.

Now, the advice they get from those high-level people varies. For example, the NYT used to take a pretty hard line on illegal immigration. But then they got into deep financial trouble and had to be bailed out by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. And surprisingly, the NYT rethought its immigration stand. Ann Coulter has explained this particular about-face very well. My point is that what they practice is not so much honest journalism, as advancing the views of certain powerful interests. Whose interest are they advancing with this story? What does anyone powerful gain from this?

Now, as for the Clintons and how they have been treated over the years. I never said they didn't criticize the Clintons; I said they excused them. In the 1990s, they dutifully covered the cattle futures story, or the Marc Rich pardon, or the Chinese pay-for-play scandal. They reported the basic facts, they tut-tutted and said it looked bad, and that there were questions that needed to be asked. Very much like how Comey criticized Hillary's conduct of the email thing. But there was never the slightest doubt (as there never was with Comey) that they would endorse the Clintons or that they would take their side in the end. The NYT's view of the Clintons over the past 30 years is very much like everyone's treatment of Harvey Weinstein over the past 20 years; they don't push. They'll say that a move was controversial, not that it was outright corruption. They'll say that Bill showed poor judgment, not that he committed rape.

The NYT is a corrupt part of a corrupt machine. Certain topics do not get discussed, certain people never get seriously criticized. When they do, it signals a significant change.

Are_we_sure

On the question of whether it really is potentially costly -- Gawker was completely destroyed by a lawsuit (the Hulk Hogan thing) in which everything they had said was agreed to be true. The judgment was on whether they had the right to invade Hogan's privacy, which is bound to be raised as an issue here too.

If you don't understand the difference between and the Hulk Hogan story of private activity and Weinstein's on the job behavior., there's probably not much I can do to show you that these are not comparable cases at all.

Gawked published video of Hulk Hogan having sex. Hogan said he never consented to that video being made. He wasn't suing Gawker for defamation where the the truth would be a shield, he sued for invasion of privacy.

The NY Times published at article of Harvey Weinstein's conduct at work.

These are a million miles apart in both the public's right to know and and the invasion of privacy issue. There's no chance for Weinstein to win a lawsuit.

The NY Times also has some of the top First Amendment lawyers in the country and several Supreme Court cases that defined 1st Ammendment freedoms to its credit. In fact, the actual malice standard a public figure like Weinstein would have to overcome in a defamation suit was established in Sullivan v New York Times.

I think that before they run a major story, the NYT talks to certain people about the impact that it will have. And the reason I think that is because it has already been proven true.

Yeah, you don't seem to understand this either. Who would the NY Times need to talk to about Harvey Weinstein?

So still bonkers.

SecondAmendment

Upvoat, @SoberSecondThought , for this excellent post. Thank you for the insight. I think there's more to come. Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich just discussed this in depth this afternoon (at around 3:30 p.m.). Alex Jones asked, "Why would they release it NOW, of all times?" They both agreed that it's probably to desensitize the public to the other news that is to follow. In other words, the news about Harvey Weinstein possibly being involved in some of the luciferian, satanic, child-centered atrocities may be a tad more palatable to the public if they've already learned that Weinstein liked to have women over the age of 18 rub his chubby, etc. It was quite an interesting discussion today, for sure. Jones came right out and called Obama "gay" at times. They were discussing how sick it is that Obama would offer his "daughter" up to Weinstein as an intern, and Jones proclaimed, "Well, we all know that's not even his daughter!"

I don't know about you guys, but I'll never forget when Justin Bieber abruptly canceled his tour this year and stories surfaced that Bieber confessed to a church group. In his confession, Bieber said that he was at a party full of elite luciferians. A big shot offered Bieber the world -- mogul status -- if Bieber would sacrifice a child. Bieber claimed he refused to do it and he bolted. I can only wonder if Harvey Weinstein knows anything about these horrific "Eyes Wide Shut" kinds of parties that we keep hearing about. TICK-TOCK. DRIP, DRIP, DRIP. Bring it on.

Truthseeker3000

Please understand that Justin Biebers manager, Scooter Braun and his wife Yael are both Kabbalah and guard Bieber everyday and every hour he apparently has to check in on him. At one point on a live social media video feed Bieber spontaneously started at a hotel Bieber spoke about having God in his life and whatnot and Scooter Braun suddenly joins the feed posting comments and Biebers demeanor changes. Scooter Braun was called out numerous times continously about the Illuminati and his influence being a Manager but he would never answer anyone posting these messages. WHAT RITUAL DID SCOOTER BRAUN COMMIT TO SECURE HIS POSITION AS A MANAGER HANDLER? He is not a good person although he comes across so positive. He has immense power to control and would never tolerate Jesus. Bieber is in the wrong hands and he knows a lot more than he is letting out. No question Scooter Braun was at that party.

angry_mob

of course weinstein knows about the eyes wide shut parties. he is one of the most powerful people in hollywood!! but i can't quite see why they are letting him take the fall, just a weird development. i sense there is info we're not seeing, something we may find out as time goes on. let the heads roll!!

SoberSecondThought

I hadn't heard that story about Bieber. Poor guy!

SecondAmendment

Yup, @SoberSecondThought , there are stories about it all over the Internet: https://www.google.com/search?q=justin+bieber+child+sacrifice&rlz=1C1AOHY_enUS752US752&oq=justin+bieber+child+sacrifice&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39l2j0l3.8494j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This one from Steemit ( https://steemit.com/news/@sirwinchester/music-industry-the-gate-to-hell-justin-bieber-speaks-out-about-pedophilia-and-abuse-in-hollywood) ) sums it up particularly well:

MUSIC INDUSTRY: THE GATE TO HELL - JUSTIN BIEBER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT PEDOPHILIA & ABUSE IN HOLLYWOOD

Recently, Justin Bieber was all over the news for abruptly cancelling the rest of his "Purpose" world tour. While his fans and media were angry at him, he never stated a reason for his decision publically - and now, it seems like we finally know the real reason.

In the last few months, Justin had become a more active Christian and a regular member of a bible study in Beverly Hills. Last week, he then shared a horrific story with the other bible study members, explaining why he felt that he had to quit his tour and take a break from the music industry. He was attending a party with many other producers, power agents, and different important figures in the music industry.

A young boy had been brought to the party for the sexual gratification of the industry elite, and he was encouraged to sexually abuse it.

“I didn’t want to do this. I really didn’t. They said this kid was drugged, it was horrible,” Bieber said, explaining that it was made clear to him that he would gain entry to the 'business side of the industry' if he 'joined the club' by passing the initiation rites. "I wouldn’t just be a performer, I’d be a mogul. That path would open up for me, like it did for Jay-Z. It’s the difference between being a millionaire and being a billionaire."

As shocking as these details are, they really show the dark side of the music industry. Justin was encouraged to take his career to the next level and 'join the club', just like Jay-Z and many others. Although he had heard rumours about these kinds of rituals in the industry, Justin stated that he hadn't been confronted with it before on a personal level.

“To join the club I’d have to do bad things to this poor kid. But then I realized that even that wasn’t enough for them. I’d also have to kill this little child. They said this kid was raped by a few different guys. They said he was bleeding. I got out of there but I heard he died and that haunts me.”

Several other sources have confirmed similar pedophile rituals. When you look up the "Bohemian Grove Club" in L.A. which Alex Jones actually uncovered several years ago, you will find a lot more information about these rituals.

They drug young children and bring them to parties, then asking celebrities to abuse them sexually. If the person asked to abuse the child doesn't agree, he gets threatened with his own life. But then if they do agree, the whole act gets filmed - and that's how they get you. Having a celebrity committing a crime like this on video is putting a huge pressure on them, and they can then be blackmailed for the rest of their lives.

These poor children are drugged and then not only raped, but later on also killed under shocking circumstances. They are purposely being tortured and experience fear of life so that there's Adrenaline in their blood - which these cannibals then drink to make themselves feel stronger.

Rumours and statements about Pedophilia and child abuse in Hollywood have always been there, but are often disposed as conspiracy theories or just not taken seriously. Now, it seems like finally more and more Hollywood stars are speaking out about it. Famous Hollywood Actor Ashton Kutcher has explained in this video how Pizzagate is a real threat, yet his statement never made it to the mainstream media. Movie Star Elijah Wood has also stated years ago that there was an "organized pedophile mafia" in Hollywood. This was a very brave move because he was essentially risking his career and his life by exposing this. Although his story was covered even in some mainstream magazines, most people were still disposing his claims as overly dramatic.

The world isn't fair. There's always an elite group of people who have brutally taken control and only care about making profit and reigning the world as they'd like it to. There's actually a brilliant scientist who has discovered a way to create free electricity - I know him personally. He wanted to file his patent for his invention which could save millions of lives, but he was drugged by this organized "Mafia". He was purposely infected with a very serious disease that will eventually lead to an early death. And all of that just because they wanted to prevent him from making an innovation public that could change and save millions of lives!

Even Linkin Park Singer Chester Bennington, who recently committed "suicide", might have been killed purposely afterall. He was also working on uncovering several cases of child trafficking, and wanted to make his findings public. He had worked on this with his close friend Chris Cornell, who also died of "suicide" earlier this year. Bennington was a loving father of 6 kids and had bought a new home shortly before his death, so killing himself at this point wouldn't have made much sense.

This may be a difficult topic to digest, but it's important to forward this message to the public as more and more artists in Hollywood are risking their careers and lives to expose this scandal!

Blacksmith21

I wonder how many people will absolutely refuse to believe any of this because of their own (repressed) memories? This is a very good summary of Pedowood.

Dressage2

Hell, he is probably a High Priest conducting them!

DeathWish3000

The Antichrist exposes pedos?

That is a plot twist and a half.

Dressage2

They could have started with John Podesta as the appetizer and the Clintons as the main course. This would then been even more shattering to the public. Everyone knows about the casting couch in Hollywood, but not everyone knows about Spirit Cooking and sacrificing kiddies.

JimmyLionstar1

I would say that both Podesta and Clintons are appetizer.

I would serve main course with , Bushes, Obama, Dick Cheney, Soros, Rothchilds, Rocefeller..

There are much bigger fishes to fry..

Dressage2

You are absolutely right!

TrishaUK

I really, really, really, REALLY, hope that when Pres.Trump said 'this is the calm before the storm' he was referring to pizzagate!!! Please, please Lord let this be time for it to explode into the public domaine! and not just that Trump team colluding with Russia is fake news, we know that - BUT it would be nice to hear that Julian Assange is given a pardon and a job as some computer expert for the White House!

mooteensy

A fucking MEN.

independenceday

Thank you. I am reposting 1 of my comments here from another Weinstein post for further exposure.

BUTTER is the name of his film....remember Tony Podesta's email about having "Lobster dipped in butter...?" We need to break down the connotations of "butter" ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_(2011_film)

Read this PLOT...sounds like a total mind-fuck MKULTRA programming movie! WTF?

The film takes place in and around Johnson County, Iowa. Destiny (Shahidi) is a ten year-old foster child in Iowa who gets placed with Ethan (Corddry) and Jill Emmet (Silverstone). While visiting the Iowa State Fair by herself, she wanders into the exhibit of the winning butter sculpture, a life-sized Last Supper, and skillfully finishes the Holy Grail cup, which impresses the sculpture's creator, Bob Pickler (Burrell).

Bob had won the fair's butter-sculpture contest for the past 15 years straight; because of his dominance, he is asked to abstain from future competitions to give others a chance. Bob's wife Laura (Garner), overly competitive and socially ambitious, goes to the home of the competition's organizer to protest. Bob goes to a strip club and solicits stripper Brooke (Wilde) for sex in his minivan. Laura discovers them and T-bones the van with her SUV.

Laura decides to enter the county's preliminary sculpture competition herself because of the social status that comes with winning. Destiny decides to enter as well, as does Brooke, who just wants to harass the Picklers because Bob owes her $600. Despite practice, Laura comes in second to Destiny.

When Brooke appears at the Picklers' seeking her money, Bob's daughter Kaitlin (Greene) admits her and takes her up to her room. After talking a bit, Kaitlin challenges Brooke to a game of truth-or-dare which escalates to them having sex. Kaitlin is drawn to Brooke's alternative style and attitude; Brooke just wants the money (she ups the amount to $1200) and Kaitlin says she can get it. While this is going on, Kaitlin's stepmom Laura is hooking up with Boyd Bolton (Jackman), an old high-school boyfriend who is now a used-car salesman. She's seducing him to get him to falsely testify to county officials that Ethan paid him to help Destiny in the competition. Laura suggests a rematch at the state fair. Destiny agrees; everyone else is disgruntled.

Brooke gets her money from infatuated Kaitlin, meets Destiny after school, and takes her to the mall to buy her a $1,200 set of chef's knives to help her in the rematch with Laura. When Destiny gets home, a social worker informs her that her biological mother has died.

At the state fair, Laura carves a replica of John F. Kennedy's car immediately after his assassination complete with the president's blown-up skull and Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill crawling onto the trunk; Destiny creates her biological mother holding her infant self in a rocking chair. That night before the judging, Boyd sneaks into the butter-sculpture room and defaces Destiny's sculpture with a blowtorch. Destiny, disappointed and expecting to lose now, encounters Laura in the restroom and offers the forgiveness of her handshake. Laura tells Destiny that winning the butter-sculpting contest means more to her than the little girl can comprehend. Laura feels she has little opportunity to distinguish herself otherwise, while Destiny has talent and her entire life to realize her own potential. Despite the damage, Destiny's sculpture wins. The sabotage of the piece is recognized as "higher art", as the judges believe the melted face lends the butter sculpture a greater depth. Destiny goes on to win in the state competition, where judges give a positive critique on her piece, deeming it an "angst-ridden exploration of post-natal abandonment." Upon her victory, Destiny assures Laura that the butter-carving contest is "not all that you have". Laura kneels down to Destiny and hugs her, understanding that she must move on to greater triumphs that are her own.

Later, Destiny is officially adopted by the Emmets and Laura is running for Governor of Iowa, claiming that God appeared to her and advised her to run.

mooteensy

Woody Allen next please

DeathWish3000

Done.

I told the AI to deal with Polanski a few years ago.

mooteensy

Why are you turning on your family? Absolutely no judgement, just curiosity. It's rare if true.

SumDumGuy

I found this to be an interesting comment from Harvey regarding Polanski

angelafogo

This is just distraction. Its bait they want us to chew. He is not a pedophile nor a satanist, he is just an asshole. Thats the reason we are talking about him and not Podesta. Do not lose time or focus with this asshole.

SecondAmendment

Right on, @angelafogo . I think it's coming. It's an epidemic and the cat's out of the bag. I think we're gonna see them hang in our lifetimes. . . .

SoberSecondThought

Well, yes, he also serves the purpose of not being Podesta. But I think it has to be a bit more than just a distraction. Lots of people would be useful as a distraction, but Weinstein is a big Clinton donor, etc. We don't often see them make moves like this, it's worth taking a moment to understand why.

angelafogo

Has anybody seen prince harrys sign with melania? They are all trying to confuse us. They want us to believe trump is with them

GumShoe

NYT is also freaking out about James O'Keefe's soon-to-be released Project Veritas exposé. I, on the other hand, am anxiously awaiting it! I hope it brings the NYT crashing down.....could be good.

Blacksmith21

Any word when its supposed to drop?

SecondAmendment

Oh yeah, @GumShoe , good point. We are living in amazing times, and I am so looking forward to seeing these mighty pieces of shit fall for their crimes against humanity.

Narcissism

Good analysis - there is something not right about the Weinstein story. Why him? Why now?

DeathWish3000

That is a novel approach. My kind of woman.

GHDW

zionists will gladly give up one of their own for the greater good, it's in the protocols

lawfag123

He knows. Shut it down.

DeathWish3000

You aint lion