Why is Harvey Weinstein really in the news?

Does anybody really believe for one second that all this news about Harvey Weinstein really has anything to do with his conduct being aberrant and immoral?

It's clear (has been for a long time) that this kind of conduct is normal among the narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths who run Hollywood, as well as many of the other money generating machines of the world . If anybody actually had any kind of decent, moral and human concern for what he did, it would have all been exposed many, many years ago. I am convinced that Harvey and others like his comrade-in-arms Bill Cosby have been outed not because of the prevalence of anything like justice.

It's my opinion that Bill Cosby's great sin was being a prominent black man who publicly espoused a socio-political ideology and world-view that was right-of-center. Wandering off the ideological plantation will make enemies for prominent black Americans, as we've seen in the past.

But what about Harvey? My guess is that he pissed off somebody who was more powerful than him. Maybe he diddled somebody's daughter or niece or even wife. Maybe he crossed some critical rule of etiquette in the social circles inhabited by those who breathe that rarefied air of elitism.

Maybe I'm behind the curve on this and have missed some critical bit of information that underscores this idea. I, admittedly, don't usually pay any attention to this kind of crap, but I have grown tired of having it shoved down my throat and of seeing the masses fawning over all the people involved as if there were actually any victims involved in the whole debacle.

Even the "victims" are no victims, rather willing participants in the big meat grinder that shapes them into little marketable sausages, as witnessed by this short clip of Gwyneth Paltrow expressing her deep gratitude for the "undying support" of the man who was trying to stick his hands down her pants. Now, she's all butt-hurt (literally or figuratively) and accusative? Where was that indignation back then? (And here are another 11 of the sick sycophants, while we're at it.



What gives? It's just morbid curiosity, but I want to know who's wrath he incurred and how!

a reply to: incoserv

Still think he's a pawn in a greater agenda.

a reply to: incoserv

But what about Harvey? My guess is that he pissed off somebody who was more powerful than him.

His brother was jealous of him for some reason plus it has been known that they didn't get along, they would go months without talking to each other.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: incoserv

But what about Harvey? My guess is that he pissed off somebody who was more powerful than him.

His brother was jealous of him for some reason plus it has been known that they didn't get along, they would go months without talking to each other.

So, his brother is a bigger muckity-muck than him to get him taken down a few notches like this? 'Cause you know that that is all that's going to happen.

(I do not follow these people or their strange customs or tribal practices.)

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: incoserv

Still think he's a pawn in a greater agenda.

OK... So, what agenda? If there's an end to this game other than just screwing over ol' Harvey and making an example of him for the education of others who might get uppity, what is is?

Eh. It's just the news cycle. News outlets are likely losing viewers with their constant anti-Trump stories, and they're looking for something that will be "sensational" and still pull in eyeballs from one of their most desired target markets -- women ages 24-25.

Except for the relatively few people personally involved, there's no other reason to drag this out into the public other than to generate outrage, which is what we get these days from news outlets instead of, oh I don't know... journalism and stuff. When your readership declines, get more lurid.

It "increases awareness!" See what comedian Doug Stanhope has to say about how much actual good that does.

None of this stuff compares to the horrors old people go through in their final years in the care of vile, uncaring relatives and nursing homes. But nobody gives a crap about that because they're not sexy.

I wonder if the Las Vegas shooting was fairly botched up, and to distract from a very serious review of what happened there, people in power have a little stash of "crises" that they can drop at any given time. This is the kind of scandal that could be done without a specific event that caused it to be released (unlike something that happens once in once specific time).

I could be far from right here, but it's one of those things that makes me wonder.

The reporters who published the Weinstein story may beg to differ. Might have been as soon as they could possibly get it out.

This is article from The Telegraph of London is quite telling. Interesting to see them eating their own - if that is, indeed, what is happening.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Eh. It's just the news cycle. ...

Except for the relatively few people personally involved, there's no other reason to drag this out into the public other than to generate outrage ...

I disagree. There'a an agenda behind targeting this specific ... being. (I was going to say "man," but he's no man by any definition of mine.)

It may be that it's useful to distract from other real issue of the day, but this guy wielded some influence and he's being knocked down a few notches, if not taken out.

Cui bono?

All the other people now speaking out about him ... None of those occurrences are recent events. They have all kept their mouths shut, some of them for years. Now, suddenly, everybody is squawking at once, like a flock of birds at sunrise. Why?

Somebody told them to speak. They'd not be doing this of their own accord. How do I know? Because they didn't do it before. As seen in the video clip above, the sycophants were fawning over the pervert up to just a few weeks ago. Now, somebody gave them a command to speak and they are all barking like a bunch of obedient little Jack Russell terriers.

originally posted by: incoserv
It may be that it's useful to distract from other real issue of the day, but this guy wielded some influence and he's being knocked down a few notches, if not taken out. Cui bono?

I don't think there's any huge agenda here. It's just his turn. I wonder how many other potential stories like this are just tucked away for a slow news period.

Perhaps there's a little bit of "well, we can't get Trump, so we'll get this guy," but I don't think there's a real, coordinated "we" here other than the news agencies scrounging around for inflammatory stories.

I could be wrong.

a reply to: incoserv



Paltrow doesn't exactly ooogle when she says his name, its almost as if her tears were subsided just before she says his name, but she is not saying rape, and others are. Also the fact that he abused his powerful influence, on some that were minors, in the business plus the fact that FINALLY so many woman came forward in the same time frame (safety in numbers) along with his company make him newsworthy, although its getting to be a bit much. The sad thing when I say that is, its not just the same story over and over coming out, but many.


I bet there is allot worse that we don't know about, and maybe never will. Perhaps he was buddies with Epstein?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: incoserv
It may be that it's useful to distract from other real issue of the day, but this guy wielded some influence and he's being knocked down a few notches, if not taken out. Cui bono?

I don't think there's any huge agenda here. It's just his turn. I wonder how many other potential stories like this are just tucked away for a slow news period.

Perhaps there's a little bit of "well, we can't get Trump, so we'll get this guy," but I don't think there's a real, coordinated "we" here other than the news agencies scrounging around for inflammatory stories.

I could be wrong.

No, I don't see any wide agenda, especially on the part of the media. Not even the political establishment.

I'm thinking that somebody in a position of power higher than him is simply using the news media for their own ends. Again, they're eating their own.

It may be his brother. It may simply be that Harvey is that much of a pervert and was not smart enough to keep it on the DL. Maybe he was just going to become too big a liability so they cut his legs out from under him before it blew up on its own in an uncontrolled way.

a reply to: kurthall

Perhaps he was buddies with Epstein?

I'm sure he is considering that HW and HRC are great friends.

originally posted by: incoserv
OK... So, what agenda?

Here's my theory.

And take a look at these sources:

How two publications raced each other to disclose a Hollywood horror story

So you have Dean Baquet editor of the NYT and Martin Baron editor of WAPO, each chasing the story.

Here's the interesting thing:

The Not-So-Bitter Rivalry of Dean Baquet and Marty Baron

Baron and Baquet are legit pals. Actually, according to Baquet during that recent Trump talk, at SXSW in Austin, “He is like, one of my best friends. … We have dinner occasionally, and we go to art galleries sometimes.”

People close to the two men confirmed that the bestie talk isn’t hot air, saying they’re known to confide and consult about personal and professional matters, and that a mutual passion for art was indeed the spark from which their friendship initially developed.

Isn't that interesting?

Shell game, have no proof, have no supporting links its just what I feel, could be an October surprise coming.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: incoserv



Paltrow doesn't exactly ooogle when she says his name, its almost as if her tears were subsided just before she says his name, but she is not saying rape, and others are. Also the fact that he abused his powerful influence that were minors in the business plus the fact that FINALLY so many woman came forward in the same time frame (safety in numbers) along with his company make him newsworthy, although its getting to be a bit much. The sad thing when I say that is, its not just the same story over and over coming out, but many.

I bet there is allot worse that we don't know about, and maybe never will. Perhaps he was buddies with Epstein?

So, to reiterate my points:

First, the Paltrow bimbo and the rest kept their mouths shut for a long time. Those were the rules of the game. They knew that and they played by the rules. Somebody had to have given them permission (or, more likely, a command) to speak out now.

As you point out, there is surely a lot worse that we don't know about and never will. If all of these little sirens started thinking and singing independently, can you imagine the industry-wide catastrophe it would precipitate. You know they are still being kept on a very short and tight leash. They had sold their souls and bodies to Daddy Harvey and now there's a reason they are asking for a refund. But what about all the others who are doing the same things? If this is real, why are we not hearing about them?

originally posted by: incoserv
All the other people now speaking out about him ... None of those occurrences are recent events. They have all kept their mouths shut, some of them for years. Now, suddenly, everybody is squawking at once, like a flock of birds at sunrise. Why?

Somebody told them to speak. They'd not be doing this of their own accord. How do I know? Because they didn't do it before. As seen in the video clip above, the sycophants were fawning over the pervert up to just a few weeks ago. Now, somebody gave them a command to speak and they are all barking like a bunch of obedient little Jack Russell terriers.

It's not that these people have been told to speak; it is that HW is not in a position to hurt their careers. If HW was still in a position of authority; these people would keep their mouths shut. Remember that for years upon years HW was one of the few people who could get their movie project off the ground or influence a director or casting agent to employ someone for a movie. HW had tremendous power over a multi billion dollar industry. People will do a lot of things for money and fame. That's just life.

originally posted by: incoserv
All the other people now speaking out about him ... None of those occurrences are recent events. They have all kept their mouths shut, some of them for years. Now, suddenly, everybody is squawking at once, like a flock of birds at sunrise. Why?

Somebody told them to speak. They'd not be doing this of their own accord. How do I know? Because they didn't do it before. As seen in the video clip above, the sycophants were fawning over the pervert up to just a few weeks ago. Now, somebody gave them a command to speak and they are all barking like a bunch of obedient little Jack Russell terriers.

Some of the actors are CIA agents.

www.latimes.com...

It’s well known that Hollywood loves a good spy story. But what is also true, according to a new memoir by a former senior CIA official, is that movie makers regularly do some real-life spying. “The CIA has long had a special relationship with the entertainment industry, devoting considerable attention to fostering relationships with Hollywood movers and shakers—studio executives, producers, directors, big-name actors,” John Rizzo, the former acting CIA general counsel, wrote in his new book, “Company Man: Thirty Years of Crisis and Controversy in the CIA.”

For sure Sean Penn is. He was involved in the sting operation on El Chapo. It's obvious. He made up a lot of BS about regrets and all, but it is just a cover story.

I wrote a thread the other day about the CIA admitting to using artists.

www.cracked.com...

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Shell game, have no proof, have no supporting links its just what I feel, could be an October surprise coming.

I don't think that this is big enough on the socio-political spectrum to be a precursor to to something like that. That's precisely what I find interesting. It's, really, a non-story. A bunch of willing participant sycophant starlets let some perv feel them up so that they could get a leg up to their dream of stardom. No news there, just business as usual. Again, as witnessed, by the video clip above, they put up with it, even if they didn't particularly like it.

I hold that he's being taken down for a personal reason. The media is the gun. The formerly fawning sycophants are the bullets. The general public is the witness.

At best, he's a lesson to others who might make similar mistakes.