The New York Time caught red handed removing news of pedophile scandal bust with proof. Use to spread awareness! (pizzagate)

submitted ago by standalone

The New York Time just made a giant blunder. They removed an article they published on 20 Nov that broke the story of a pedophile network being investigated in Norway. They also managed to have all references removed from archive.org. Unfortunately for them, someone had already archived it on archive.is. We now have a side-by-side glaring piece of evidence that the New York Time has actually removed the article, and with the ongoing censorship around #pizzagate, this is hardly a coincidence.

Here is the link to archive.is .

It shows the two versions of the document with date. Spread the link far and wide. Use it to show people that censorship around pizzagate is real. We are not talking about an unknown alternative news website. We are not talking about alleged Russian propaganda or conspiracy theorists having hallucinations and writing outrageous slander that needs to be removed. We are talking about the New York Time making an article about the investigation of a pedophile ring, keeping it online two weeks, and then removing it, probably following external pressures.

This doesn't prove that #pizzagate is real. But that proves that the elite and MSM are afraid of #pizzagate, so afraid that they are trying to eliminate every traces of elite-related pedophilia scandals, even at the risk of being accused of violating the first amendment. Which strongly suggests that what they are trying to hide is much worse than that, and that they would probably consider themselves content if all that they got charged with was the violation of the first amendment. And that thing they are trying to hide is ... that #pizzagate is real. That's the only logical conclusion, and I expect that this time around, people have seen enough censorship going on and will make the leap forward.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Atreidian ago

Great find.

Remember that NyTimes also wrote an article attempting to normalize pedophilia: http://nyti.ms/1CNYxiF

Also Mark Thompson, current CEO of NyTimes, was CEO for BBC and obfuscated the Jimmy Saville Pedophilia case: https://youtu.be/N9o6F6z16lI

Chance903 ago

Unfortunately , This is already in the DSM-5 and is currently being taught in all psychology Classes world wide. http://jaapl.org/content/42/4/404 Many in society are likely to equate Pedophilia with child molestation. They are not the same. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)1 may be contributing inadvertently to the misconception that they are the same, for the following three reasons:

First, DSM-5 states that an indicator of a Pedophilic Disorder would be that an individual has “acted on” his sexual urges (Ref. 1, p 697). “Acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. The current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. That could cause confusion, suggesting that the current definition of a Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Second, at present, in discussing Pedophilia, DSM-5 makes reference to the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation. Sexual Orientation is ordinarily used to designate the category, or categories, of persons whom a given individual finds to be sexually appealing. Those who are heterosexually oriented are sexually attracted to adults of the opposite sex; those who are homosexual, to adults of the same sex; men with a heterosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent females; and men with a homosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent boys.

In the face of significant criticism of its inclusion in the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual.2 Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.

Third, in discussing the nature of a Pedophilic Disorder, DSM-5 has done little to characterize the multitude of psychiatric burdens associated with the condition, burdens that are frequently present, even in the absence of any acts of child sexual abuse.

JUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU ARE TOO DENSE LIKE GORILLION TO UNDERSTAND THIS POST> WHAT I AM SAYING IS: THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE NOW TEACHING IN PSYCHOLOGY WORLD WIDE PER THE DSM-5 < OF COURSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT AS I AM A RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT PUT THESE SHORTEYES AWAY. SO PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ANY NASTY GRAMS LIKE GORRILION <WHO CANNOT READ.

Atreidian ago

Man, that's the strangest article. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Check these quotes:

"Under current circumstances, a diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder can infer a risk of hands-on offending with children. If the diagnosis is made largely on the basis of the use of child pornography, the inference may be inaccurate, with potentially unwarranted negative consequences for the individual."

"From a purely statistical standpoint (all else being equal) individuals with no history of a hands-on sexual offense against a child, but who have accessed child pornography, are at low risk as a group of committing a hands-on sexual offense in the future."

"Even though viewing sexualized images of children is illegal, privately viewing such images and fantasizing about them does not necessarily reflect a real-life intent or interest in being sexual with a child."

It's just hard for me to justify the debasing of innocent children as a sexual orientation. I understand that they're trying to differentiate the criminal act from the mental disorder, but even so...normalizing "attraction to prepubescent children" is not the way to go.

Give them a pedophilia prevention hotline or something, similar to suicide prevention. This would allow them to seek help, and not have to face the "adverse effects" of admitting sexual attraction to children.

Chance903 ago

In my opinion even viewing child pornography is abusive. Eventually, all pedophiles give into their urges.

Atreidian ago

I agree.

On another note, I looked into the writer of that article you linked and I found some interesting stuff.

It was written by Fred S. Berlin, who is an "American psychiatrist and sexologist specializing in sex offenses". That's to be expected, of course.

Something interesting I did find though, is that Fred Berlin actually defended Joe Paterno and his actions in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal))

Now, Joe Paterno was implicated in knowing that child abuse was going on, yet did nothing about it.

What Fred Berlin says after having looked through the Freeh Report (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/12/sports/ncaafootball/13pennstate-document.html)), is:

"I have not seen evidence supporting a conclusion that Joe Paterno had acted in bad faith, nor have I seen evidence supporting a conclusion that he has ever been a man who had lacked a genuine concern about the well-being of others – including the well-being of children.”

That quote is taken from this site: http://www.paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Dr-Fred-S-Berlin.aspx#.WEukkVxVbTo

There's video there as well, where he gets noticeably flustered defending Joe Paterno. (Here's a youtube link of the video as well: https://youtu.be/FJ1lsJG5LPo))

Ok, so that quote and verdict by Berlin was published on February 6, 2013 (http://www.paterno.com/Resources/Docs/BERLIN_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf))

Now what's interesting is that in 2014, new evidence suggested that Paterno had known about sexual abuse going on at Penn State since 1976. Here's the article, published this year: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17015181/testimony-unsealed-documents-alleges-joe-paterno-knew-jerry-sandusky-abuse-1976

So, in essence, Joe Paterno lied to the authorities about his knowledge of Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of children.

Now, this could be a simple error on Berlin's part, not having the full evidence, so he was unable to make a proper judgement of the situation...but I just find the whole thing strange.

It reminds me of the Mark Thompson-Jimmy Savile thing, where Mark Thompson gave bad information about the Jimmy Savile Pedophilia case, or rather denied knowing anything about Jimmy Savile's pedophilia..

But hey, Jerry Sandusky is in prison for child sex abuse, and Joe Paterno is no longer alive, so this could all be null and void information.

Still...the idea of defending or covering up, or even normalizing the debasement of children doesn't sit well with me.

Chance903 ago

I find it highly disagreeable, to put it mildly, to think this is how they want to treat these Pedophiles. I spent 22 years helping to put people like this away. Of course, at, work I had( HAD )to be professional and not lose my shit on these people, but I know how they think and even the ones that are not offending yet....they will eventually fall prey to their base nature. This is very difficult to know what and how they think and then how my Professors want me to think, which is not based in reality. One point to make all of my Psychology Professors are left wing liberal. It has not been easy for me going back to school in a leftist Liberal world.