We should begin with the 2014 opinion piece published by the NYT that, shockingly, few are familiar with. That article is entitled, "Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime." It begins, "THINK back to your first childhood crush. Maybe it was a classmate or a friend next door.." doing their best to associate this sickening practice with our first feelings of love, otherwise implying that it is natural, if not normal.
In what can only be seen as shameless pandering to those behind the scenes, the article goes on from there to make the assertion that pedophiles are neither responsible for the crimes they commit, nor do they have the ability to stop themselves, effectively relieving these damaged individuals of all culpability and accountability for their actions. The author goes as far as to label the crime a "disability," with potential discrimination thereof. The writer makes the claim that the laws currently in place in the US are, "inconsistent and irrational," and argues that these child molesters should be sent for treatment, as opposed to serving prison time for their heinous acts against the most defenseless of us all. This is despite the overwhelming numbers that show just how often these "victims of impulse," as the writer is trying to frame them, are "victims" of recidivism; the tendency of a convicted criminal to re-offend.
According to Harvard Medical School, estimates of recidivism among sexual offenders vary because studies define this term in different ways. One such Harvard review found recidivism rates as high as 50% among pedophiles.
One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.
One may be thinking, this is exactly why these troubled individuals need treatment, as the author suggests. No one can argue that one with such sickening desires does not need treatment, as that seems to be a foregone conclusion. However, the issue in question is whether or not that treatment actually works, and most importantly, whether or not treatment can be, or should be, used in place of a correctional facility, as the author dangerously advocates. A 2004 study published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, which included 109 convicted sex offenders who completed therapy and 37 who dropped out, showed that the "non-completers," were in fact more likely to commit another sexual crime.
The point being, that treatment does work to a certain degree and is important, as many can attest to, but not in place of a correctional facility when considering violent sexual criminals - and for one very clear reason. Researchers of the study noted that sex offenders who completed the therapy were not any more likely to show empathy toward their past victims.
This, in the opinion of some, shows a willingness to complete the therapy so as to move past it, but not with the intention to get better. The lack of empathy is a very important note, as the researchers documented, as it shows a lack of remorse. How can one feel that treatment for such a horrendous crime is effective if the perpetrator never shows any remorse for the acts they committed? The running theme throughout the article is that those who engage in pedophilia, should not be treated as criminals,but as victims themselves,despite the fact that potentially half of them will victimize another child in the near future, and even those who complete the treatment were no more likely so show remorse for those they abused.
One could come to all kinds of conclusions about why this article was written, and what the intentions truly were, but at the end of the day, it could be chalked up to any number of agendas or personal experiences, on its own.
On numerous occasions while "covering" the Pizzagate investigation, the New York Times editorial staff took it upon themselves to ignore their charge as journalists to hold those in power accountable, and instead chose to completely omit the evidence at hand, in order to pander to the very individuals under scrutiny for pedophilia.And the few articles the failing organization did choose to put out on the topic were shockingly devoid of any critical analysis of the information, while inserting their own feelingsabout the case, and "conspiracy theorists" as a whole. That is not journalism, its propaganda.
There is far too much information surrounding this case to rehash it all in a single article (for those interested, TLAV has done extensive research into the case, as have many others such as Titus Frost), yet it is not hard to see, even with a cursory glance, that there is truth to these claims backed up by some pretty damning evidence, as many are beginning to see.
Which brings us to a recent NYT piece entitled, "Why I Admire Anthony Weiner;" and yes, it was written after Weiner was arrested and sentenced to prison for acts of pedophilia. This one speaks for itself. And there is no hidden meaning, no metaphor to be had - as if that would make it any better, should the writer have some grand conclusion and explanation for why she is openly admiring a convicted pedophile. The writer is simply making the case for why she admires his conduct during his trial, for which he was being held accountable, and rightly so, for his illegal actions with a 15-year-old girl. In essence, the author is saying that Weiner chose to take the high road, in accepting that he was responsible for his crime instead of blaming the disease, as many often do. Yet this is a blatant attempt to minimize the negative press of both Weiner and the Democratic party. Despite him no longer holding a position, it still reflects very badly on the party, which is why they went to their knee-jerk political propaganda arm, The New York Times, to pump out a fluff piece.
In astonishingly oblivious fashion, the writer ignores the years of lies and manipulation that preceded Weiner's display of what can only be seen as regret for being caught, as opposed to actual remorse.How can it be admirable to sexually abuse an underage girl, lie about it for years, allow Hillary Clinton to cover it up for you, wait until they have you dead to rights, still deny the charges, then sobbingly admit to them in court when confronted with the overwhelming evidence? That's easy, it's not.
What we are witnessing here is what amounts to the acceptance and normalization of child abuse by the New York Times, in order to cover for some much larger issue at play. God only knows what those are... (well, and the independent media)