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.
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.
paulf ago
A time is coming soon when Tavistock-funded APA horseshit will be burned and all the people who promote it will also be burned.