Inspirational Quote of the Day: One by Harvey Weinstein

Harvey used to get around:

PEAK JEW

Seen at Deplorableish’s Twitter.

Read Rabbi Shmuley’s nonsense at The Times of Israel

Harvey Weinstein expelled from motion picture academy

At least some of the pukes who gave the boot to Harvey knew exactly what he had been doing and said nothing.

These hypocrites do not deserve a break. Let (((Hollywood))) continue to devour more of its own.

We see how quickly Jews will turn on their fellow Jews when the chips are down and shekels are at stake.

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times

mbattled film mogul Harvey Weinstein — a once-dominant force in the Academy Awards who rewrote the rules of Oscar campaigning — has been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in response to mounting allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him.

The film academy’s 54-member board of governors, which includes such industry luminaries as Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Kathleen Kennedy and Whoopi Goldberg, voted in an emergency meeting on Saturday morning to remove Weinstein from the organization’s ranks in an unprecedented public rebuke of a prominent industry figure. The move marked the latest blow in Weinstein’s stunning downfall and, in symbolic terms, amounts to a virtual expulsion from Hollywood itself.

In removing Weinstein from its ranks, the academy said in a statement, “We do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over. What’s at issue here is a deeply troubling problem that has no place in our society. The Board continues to work to establish ethical standards of conduct that all Academy members will be expected to exemplify.”

Since reports of Weinstein’s alleged misconduct toward dozens of women first surfaced in the New York Times on Oct. 5, the academy had been under increasing pressure to take action against him. On Tuesday, the National Organization for Women publicly called for Weinstein’s removal, stating, “A sexual predator doesn’t deserve the privilege of an academy membership — and all the opportunities to wield outsize power that come with it.”

Don’t give the Clintons and other high profile Democrats a pass either.

Twenty-one members of the film academy’s board are women — as is its chief executive, Dawn Hudson — and in recent years the organization has taken steps to dramatically increase the number of women in its historically overwhelmingly male ranks.

In the past several days, a number of academy members expressed their feelings both privately and publicly that Weinstein had no place in the film industry’s most prestigious organization. CBS Films President Terry Press, who regularly battled Weinstein on the awards trail during her tenure as a marketing executive at DreamWorks, vowed in a Facebook post to quit the academy if he was allowed to remain. “The idea that anyone would give him a second chance or entertain the notion that he can change is beyond absurd,” wrote Press.

Even Weinstein’s brother, Bob — with whom he ran Miramax Films and then Weinstein Co. — said in an interview published Saturday in the Hollywood Reporter that he felt the academy should expel him, adding that he planned to write a note to the group to that effect.

But within the academy some wrestled with the decision, fearing that it could set a precedent that would require the academy to police its members’ behavior going forward. As many have pointed out in recent days, other Hollywood figures who have come under attack for their treatment of women — including Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson — remain members of the academy in good standing.

The academy’s bylaws give the board of governors free rein to expel members “for cause,” but that power has very rarely been exercised. The last member to be banished from the group was actor Carmine Caridi, who was booted in 2004 for sharing promotional copies of films that were later pirated. Sources close to the academy say that other members had been more quietly suspended in years past for selling their tickets to the Oscars ceremony, but nothing ever rose to the level of attention surrounding Weinstein.

You see the problem:

It’s time to clean house.

As Trump would say, “Drain the swamp.”

Fired L’Oreal Negroid Tranny Munroe Bergdorf is Back in New BBC Video Hating on White People Again

To keep your lunch, breakfast, or dinner down and not on your computer keyboard, you might avoid watching either of the videos embedded in this post. The mulatto tranny here isn’t fooling anyone, but is disgusting to see and listen to.

I listened because I do it for you, the people.

Breitbart

The BBC has produced and aired a “take” by trans model Munroe Bergdorf, in which white people are excoriated as inherently racist and “the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth”.

Bergdorf, who was previously given a platform by the BBC when cosmetics firm L’Oreal sacked them for similar racist comments, was speaking on the October 12th edition of the BBC This Week current affairs programme.

“What kind of country is modern Britain? No doubt it’s a country that likes to think of itself as inclusive, but that depends on where you’re standing,” Bergdorf complained.

“For me, as a transgender mixed race person, we live in a deeply racist society.”

“Why should we expect anything else from a country that’s built its success on the enslavement of non-white people?” Bergdorf alleged.

“It’s that continuous cycle of racism that explains where we are now. Why does the UK acknowledge the sacrifice of people killed in wars, but not the spilt blood of black people?”

In fact, there are many British memorials commemorating the victims of the slave trade and celebrating its abolition. The oldest, according to Historic England, is the Anti-Slavery Arch in Stroud, Gloucestershire, erected in 1834 by Henry Wyatt to celebrate the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

The most recent appears to have been a memorial erected in June this year to commemorate Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, a parliamentarian who campaigned tirelessly against slavery.

Alt-Right picks up on Bergdorf’s obsession with feelings over facts.

Bergdorf himself has a fascinating passive-aggressive debating style worth mentioning, which I’d like to call “the hair-trigger roundhouse bitch”. In this unique style of communication favored by feminists and SJWs, one treats all questions and offers of discussion as deeply offensive assaults upon one’s feelings. Facts and figures, especially, are insulting, as they are used as weapons to invalidate one’s anecdotal evidence and emotion-based talking points which form 100% of the roundhouse bitch’s intellectual arsenal. Questions and stated facts are never actually responded to, only deflected in these two ways: 1. by whining about one’s imaginary victim status and 2. by complaining about being “misunderstood”. Amid the sympathy-seeking wails, the roundhouse bitch snidely counterattacks with angry, oftentimes unintentionally humorous outbursts and insults that betray the bitch’s true hate-fueled agenda and desire to dominate and crush opposing views. Such a debating style can be clearly observed in the video clip below, from the Victoria Derbyshire program on which Bergdorf made an appearance after L’Oreal fired him in early September.

This unhappy creature isn’t needed anywhere in the West, including in Britain. He should either kill himself or move to some paradise free of white people. I recommend almost any country in Africa.

(((Oliver Stone))) Says Don’t Condemn Weinstein, Then Backtracks As He is Accused of Groping

Jew or Not Jew rates Oliver Stone as barely a Jew since his father was Jewish and his mother Catholic.

Hollywood’s Jewish ingroup support mechanism has broken down in the Harvey Weinstein affair, but apparently Stone didn’t get the word.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got a real sh*tshow going on. May it continue and ruin more careers of the elites.

DEFENDING HARVEY:

People

Oliver Stone opted against condemning Harvey Weinstein following multiple allegations of sexual harassment.

The Snowden director, 71, told reporters Friday at the Busan International Film Festival that he believes people are innocent until proven guilty.

“I’m a believer that you wait until this thing gets to trial,” he said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “I believe a man shouldn’t be condemned by a vigilante system.”

Stone continued, “It’s not easy what [Weinstein is] going through, either. During that period he was a rival. I never did business with him and didn’t really know him.”

“I’ve heard horror stories on everyone in the business,” Stone adds. “So I’m not going to comment on gossip. I’ll wait and see, which is the right thing to do.”

People left this out: “It’s not easy what he’s going through, either”

Actually, although Stone’s wording was inarticulate, he’s right about the left trying people in the press. Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational tenet of Western justice.

STONE BACKTRACKS HOURS LATER:

Buzzfeed

However, Stone issued a statement on his Facebook page hours later clarifying his comments: “I’ve been traveling for the last couple of days and wasn’t aware of all the women who came out to support the original story in the New York Times,” he said.

“After looking at what has been reported in many publications over the last couple of days, I’m appalled and commend the courage of the women who’ve stepped forward to report sexual abuse or rape.”

Stone added he would “recuse himself” from his forthcoming Showtime series Guantanamo as long as Weinstein is involved.

Most of Hollywood refused to condemn Harvey until it became clear that if they didn’t they were going to pay a severe penalty for their silence and their hypocrisy. Stone must have gotten the same message: Disavow or be eviscerated by the press and social media.

However, Stone’s disavowal may be too late. He’s the latest Hollywood male celebrity to be accused.

OLIVER STONE ACCUSED

Fox News

Carrie Stevens, who was Playboy’s Playmate of the Month in June 1997, said in an interview that famed filmmaker Oliver Stone once grabbed one of her breasts at a party.

The New York Daily News reported Thursday that Stevens was at a party honoring Stone more than 20 years ago. She said Stone walked up to her, “reached out and … honked it like a horn.”

“He was really cocky, had this big grin on his face like he was going to get away with something,” she told the paper. She was 22 at the time.

Stevens told the paper that others saw the incident, but nobody said anything because “that’s what’s going on in Hollywood. That’s why things have to change.”

Some 30 women — including actresses Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd and Gwyneth Paltrow — have spoken out recently to say Weinstein had sexually harassed or sexually assaulted them. Rose McGowan, who has long suggested that Weinstein sexually assaulted her, tweeted Thursday that “HW raped me.”

The initials were an apparent reference to Weinstein, and the Hollywood Reporter said the actress confirmed to them that she was referring to the disgraced film mogul. The New York Times earlier reported that Weinstein paid a financial settlement of $100,000 to McGowan in 1997 over an incident in a hotel room at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

“Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein,” Weinstein’s representative Sallie Hofmeister said Thursday.

As to the Playboy mansion party, get real. When a nude model goes there, she’s going to get “unwanted” attention of the type she really wants.

CARRIE STEVENS. HONK, HONK.

As to the rest of the saga of Harvey’s ungentlemanly behavior, Hollywood has always played by its own rules, not by the rules of tradtional America.

It’s nice to see (((Hollywood))) devouring its own. Keep it up guys.

Traitor Jane Fonda Admits She Knew About Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Assaults but Said Nothing

Vietnam-era traitor Jane Fonda had the nerve to speak out against the U.S. while in North Vietnam, but the hypocrite couldn’t bring herself to talk about Harvey Weinstein until it became safe to do so.

She turns her condemnation of him in an interview into a condemnation of white men in general and Donald Trump in particular.

She’s garbage.

People

Jane Fonda says she first heard about Harvey Weinstein‘s alleged misbehavior last year and she’s ashamed she hasn’t spoken about it until now.

“I found out about Harvey about a year ago and I’m ashamed that I didn’t say anything right then,” Fonda, 79, told Christiane Amanpour during an interview for CNNMoney on Thursday.

Explaining why she stayed silent, Fonda said, “Because I guess it hadn’t happened to me and so I didn’t feel it was my place.”

The Frankie and Grace star said that her knowledge of Weinstein’s alleged behavior came from Rosanna Arquette — one of the 13 women who came forward with sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein on Tuesday in The New Yorker.

“I’m glad it’s coming out,” Fonda added. “I’m so proud of those fellow actors that are speaking up and I know that it’s taken a long time. It’s a very, very, very, hard thing to do. You don’t get anything out of it as the person who has been victimized. But it’s important that it come out.”

“But let’s not think that this is some unique, horrific — this goes on all the time,” Fonda continued. “It’s this male entitlement— in Hollywood and everywhere, in offices and businesses all over the world; in bars, in restaurants, in stores, women are assaulted, abused, harassed and seen for just being sexual objects, there for a man’s desire instead of as whole human beings.”

Asked whether she had ever been sexually harassed, Fonda replied that she had — but not by Weinstein.

“It has happened to me. It has. I only met Harvey when I was old. And Harvey goes for young because that’s more vulnerable. You know. But it’s very, very common,” Fonda said before saying the director of her first French film tried to sleep with her.

“The director didn’t speak very good English and he flew to L.A. to pitch me the story, which was hard for me to even understand what the story was,” she said. “But I remember him saying to me — and I was 20 — he said to me, you know, in the movie, your character has to have an orgasm and I really need to know what kind of orgasms you have. And so he wanted me to sleep with him.”

“I turned him down. I got the part anyway. And he was — you know, he was very nice after that,” Fonda said before adding that any woman who finds herself in that situation has to say no, no matter what she’s worried about losing. “You have to understand that you have control over your body and that you have to say no and you have to talk and tell when something like that happens. If we all talked and told, then they would be too afraid to do it, I think. I hope.”

Fonda also brought up how important it is for men to support women when they speak up about sexual harassment and assault. “We have to be helped by men. It’s important to know that not all men are predators. There are good men and the good men have to stand up and defend us and embody other ways of being. We have to believe the women who come forward. We have to speak out.”

Although she admitted that so long as Donald Trump is in the White House, it sends a bad message. “Unfortunately that counteracts a lot of the good that we’re doing because a lot of men see, well, our president does it and he got elected, even after people discovered that he was an abuser so I’m just going to go ahead and do what I want to do. It’s unacceptable and we can’t ever forget that and we have to stand up to them.”

Fonda fails to note that Trump said they let you do it. It’s called consent when they let you do it. Only a batty lefty would not understand that.

Watch, if you can stomach her:

A Las Vegas Massacre Skeptic Explains the End Game

Skeptic Chuck Baldwin has analyzed the Las Vegas massacre and come up with a number of challenges to the story as it has been told so far.

The seven questions below are asked by Baldwin and then elaborated upon in the original article.

Following the skeptic’s eye view of the story, he offers the reader a theory about the incident.

Excerpts from Lew Rockwell


1. Where are the hundreds or thousands of spent cartridges on Stephen Paddock’s hotel floor?

2. Why do so many witnesses who were at the scene report shooters in so many different locations?

3. Why do so many police officers who were at the scene report shooters in so many different locations?

4. Where did the shots come from that went through the front doors at the Bellagio Hotel Casino (and other casinos)?

5. Where is the Ruger bolt-action .308 caliber rifle that Paddock purchased only a few hours before the shootings?

6. Why would Paddock need to break out two windows, including in the suite and in the adjoining room?

7. Why did the CEO and part owner of the Mandalay Bay Hotel Casino sell off his portion of the holdings in the hotel over a couple month period just before the shootings?

The smell is bad when you consider that there there are so many things that don’t add up about the alleged shootings.

Baldwin finishes up with this conspiracy theory, which makes sense to me:

If there was more than one shooter, the only thing that makes sense to me is that it had to be a professional dark ops government action. “Whose government?” you ask. There are only three governments that have the resources to successfully pull off a shooting of this magnitude and completely escape detection inside the continental United States—only three: America’s CIA, British MI6, and the Israeli Mossad. That’s it. Plus, the presence of “spy cameras” in Paddock’s room strongly indicates the presence of spooks. This is almost standard procedure for covert ops and suggests a degree of sophistication in this operation that I cannot imagine Stephen Paddock would have. Forget ISIS and all that claptrap. If there were multiple shooters (of which all but one have completely disappeared, and no one in law enforcement is even looking for them), it could only be carried out by one of—or a consortium of—these three governments.

I realize that it is extremely difficult (and uncomfortable) for people to accept the possibility that elements within our own government could be capable of such an atrocity as the shootings in Las Vegas. But any government that has no qualms about murdering tens of millions of unborn babies; any government that has no qualms about murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world in unprovoked, preemptive drone attacks, missile attacks, bombings, assassinations, and illegal dark operations; and any government that would callously send young Americans into these battlefield meat grinders to fight and die for the sake of wars for profit, nation-building, and political power-brokering is capable of ANYTHING.

No, this doesn’t mean that your congressman or senators (or mine) or the President of the United States or even the Pentagon knows about it—although any one or several of them MIGHT. But it does mean that there is an illegal nefarious dark side of government that surreptitiously carries out the most evil and unspeakable acts of violence against the most helpless and innocent of people ALL OF THE TIME. To monsters this wicked and vile, the lives of 58 innocents in Las Vegas is just another day at the office.

When the American people can come to grips with the distinct possibility of what I am saying, then we can have an intelligent conversation about what to do about it. But until people (including local police officials) are willing to entertain this potentiality, any conversation on the subject is moot. And dismissing what this author is saying as being nothing but a nutty conspiracy theory only ensures that, if there are such people behind these kinds of mass shootings, we will never be able to get to the crux of it, and it will only continue—which is what is happening, isn’t it?

But it should be obvious WHY a dark side of government would want to do such things. As I’ve already noted, the ultimate goal of America-haters is our disarmament. And since no one in law enforcement, government, or the media is willing to delve into this possibility, these kinds of shootings only worsen over time. The next shooting (and there will be another one) will be worse than Las Vegas. They will not stop until America is disarmed OR until the American people awaken to what is happening and demand that the light of truth start shining on the dark forces behind these atrocities.

Of course, the other thing these mass shootings accomplish is to put America deeper and deeper into a cage. You can bet that from now on getting into a Las Vegas hotel casino will be like boarding a commercial airliner—or worse. Larger cities across America will enact stricter and stricter security measures in more and more places, which means our liberties will go down the toilet even faster. Plus, don’t forget that numerous insider security peddlers, such as former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President G.W. Bush (and co-author of the Patriot Act) Michael Chertoff, are going to make billions of dollars promoting the security industry.

The more we are told about the Las Vegas shootings, the less believable it is.

Given the utter apathy of the national news media for truthful investigative reporting, and given the gullibility of so many Americans to swallow the mindless propaganda from the national news media, and given the unwillingness of local law enforcement agencies to challenge the narratives from the federal government, I guess Stephen Paddock is destined to go down in history alongside Lee Harvey Oswald as the “lone shooter” in one of the worst killings in America. And we all KNOW that Oswald acted alone, don’t we?

P.S. One more time, let me remind readers about our book on why no one, especially Christians, should allow themselves to be disarmed—and specifically why they should never allow their semi-automatic rifles to be taken away from them.

The Las Vegas shootings have only invigorated the gun-grabbers (and spineless jellyfish) in government to pass additional gun control laws. And, sadly, a host of pastors and churches are telling their congregations that Christians are obligated to surrender their firearms should civil government require them to do so. Furthermore, many are saying that banning semi-automatic rifles is “reasonable” and is not actually disarming us. They could not be more WRONG. Plus, such teaching is an egregious violation of the Word of God.