lf2

More evidence of Harvey Weinstein’s psychopathic behavior: Hiring spies to out his accusers

According to a new report by Ronan Farrow, movie producer Harvey Weinstein learned a year ago that women were getting ready to accuse him of sexual harassment, and he set out to stop it. Weinstein employed lawyers and spies, including former agents of the Israeli Mossad, to learn what his accusers were saying to journalists. His goal was to stop the story from being published.

It’s a typical psychopathic maneuver — searching for information in which to discredit accusers. Except Weinstein did it on a grand scale.

Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies, on NewYorker.com.

Chilling tale of Harvey Weinstein’s spies shows Ronan Farrow’s reporting chops — and compassion, on WashingtonPost.com.

Story suggested by a Lovefraud reader.



Comment on this article

21 Comments on "More evidence of Harvey Weinstein’s psychopathic behavior: Hiring spies to out his accusers"

Notify of

Unbelievable. this is what people who have never been abused by a sociopath just don’t get. When I read this article a few days ago my heart just sank for his wife. I cant even imagine the hell she has been enduring behind closed doors, since day one without realizing what pure evilness she was dealing with, a rich & powerful sociopath. I remember the cover of Time magazine with the Title Is Bernie Madoff a Sociopath? (something like that) hope they do the same for evil Weinstein!!

So glad Farrow had the guts to write & publish Weinstein’s victims story!! It takes a village to expose a sociopath to the world. It’s interesting no one wants to believe one victim’s words but if a group comes out they see the truth.

I hope nobody is surprised by the “revelations” in this article. Harvey Weinstein, like others of his kind, is different from most of us, not just in one way, but in two. Both of those differences mean he “thinks differently” from the way the rest of us do.

Weinstein may well be psychopathic, which is one difference, the one that accounts for his predatory behavior. And as a psychopath he would most likely seek ways, not just of covering up that behavior, but of influencing and controlling others to support his version of events and maintain the coverup.

But he’s also rich and powerful. That’s a difference in itself. I hope everyone knows the old story about the supposed exchange between two of our most celebrated American novelists of the earlier twentieth century. F. Scott Fitzgerald allegedly remarked to Ernest Hemingway that “The rich are different from you and me,” to which Hemingway famously replied: “Yes, they have more money!”

In reality it didn’t happen quite that way; if you want to know more, just Google it. But taking the anecdote at face value, which of the two was right?

It’s a philosophical question with much to be said for both sides. On the one hand, the rich are no different from any of us insofar as they’re subject to the same human traits and qualities, needs, desires, ambitions, faults, failures, virtues and vices. But money does make a difference to people’s attitude toward life.

We may think of “money” as interchangeable with material commodities. How many material goods do we have at our disposal? At the lowest end of the scale, the poorest of the poor don’t even have enough to eat, and never did. That was the way of life for the majority of people for most of human history, until the genius of men’s inventiveness found ways to produce food and other goods more efficiently. Most of that happened only within the last two or three hundred years, and then only in the most advanced regions of the world. I dare say it’s natural for most people to think of money in terms of “how much can we afford?” If we have enough to eat, it’s “what kind of clothes, what kind of house, what kind of car, how many toys and luxury goods” can we afford?

When it comes to “getting things done,” it’s more often than not a “do-it-yourself” project. Most families cook for themselves, clean their own homes, wash their own clothes, and dig their own gardens if they have one, usually as a hobby. When things break and need fixing, it’s a tossup whether we do that ourselves as well. At the poorer end of the scale, if the car won’t start, some guy gets under the hood and tinkers with it until it does. Or he gets a friend to help him. (That’s assuming he can afford a car in the first place!) Taking it to paid mechanic or dealer is a last resort, if not entirely out of the question.

Of course, that’s not just because many people “can’t afford” it, but also because they often have the skills to do it themselves, which should command respect. Many activities fall into this category. Millions of people paint their own homes, and do all kinds of minor repairs, rather than paying someone to do it—again, assuming they can afford a home of their own! Making and mending clothes is another such skill, though not practiced so much today as it used to be a couple of generations ago. And of course, we all open our morning mail ourselves… don’t we?

The main point I’m trying to highlight in all this is that most of us probably take care of most of the routine things in our daily lives, including “repairs” of various kinds, ourselves. As I write this I think of my late brother-in-law, a good and intelligent man who was not only handy with anything mechanical, but was glad to help out anyone who needed it, and was happiest when he had something worthwhile to do! I do believe that “doing it ourselves” is a virtue!”

Yet there’s always a threshold where most of us have to admit we “can’t do it ourselves,” that we have to call in professional help—and that means paying for it! For many it’s car repairs, or appliance repairs, or computers, or painting the house, or plumbing. If you can’t wield a wrench, you have to either get a friend or pay a professional! For many, that’s a psychological barrier they have to surmount. “Oh, shit! I have to pay their outrageous prices to get my problem fixed!” It’s something many people avoid as far as they possibly can. And a lot of people’s thinking is, in a manner of speaking, “object-oriented.” That’s to say, keeping life moving smoothly depends on control of things or objects that serve us in various ways, whether that’s the food we put in our mouths, the roof over our heads, or all the “gadgets” we need for everyday life.

That, in my perception, constitutes a major difference between being merely “middle class” or “comfortable” and being RICH! Because the truly RICH have enough money not only to command all the commodities they need—whether that’s food, or land, or a roof over their heads, or cars and boats and airplanes and clothes and jewels and all the toys in the world—but the ability to buy the services of people! Anyone with enough money can have a whole army of people at their disposal. They don’t have to think for one moment about the difference between “something I can do myself” and “something I’m obliged to pay other people to do for me.” For truly rich people, “it’s all the same”!

It’s not “can I afford to have the house painted” or “the car repaired,” but “call in the painters” or “have the chauffeur take it back to the dealer” to get the job done. Even opening the morning mail may be the duty of a secretary and not of his or her employer—and woe betide the secretary who fails to do it, because he or she can always be fired!

THAT is a huge difference between Harvey Weinstein and most of us, in addition to the reality that he’s most likely a psychopath. Psychopaths after all are usually diligent in maintaining their “image.” That typically involves taking careful note of how others may be thinking of them, and above all of “damage control,” making sure they counter any accusations anyone might make against them by attacking and destroying the public image of their accusers.

For most psychopaths this is invariably a “do-it-yourself” project! They personally buttonhole anyone whose ear they have and do their best to slander their accusers and paint them as “unreliable.” But to a rich psychopath like Weinstein this is automatically a job to delegate to an army of paid flunkeys. Weinstein’s question is not “how can I get this done?” but “Who can do it for me? Let’s get the thing in motion!” Who has the skills? Ex-CIA? Ex-Mossad? Ex-Gestapo? Ex-GRU? Ex-SAVAK, even? (No, I guess everyone has forgotten SAVAK…)

So I hope nobody is surprised at these revelations. From a man in Weinstein’s position, not just “rich” but accustomed to wielding power, for whom such defensive reactions are simply automatic, they’re no more than I would have expected!

And yet the rich are no happier than anyone else. They still suffer from the stress of managing their lives, or in the case of Weinstein, their lies, and they still suffer from alienation and isolation – that emptiness they think they can fill with material things, sex, and power. They are unconscious. But I wonder if there can ever be an awakened politician. They all seem susceptible to corruption. Heck, if someone offered me a million dollars right now to promote a brand of cigarettes or assault rifles, I’d be asking myself if maybe I could just do it one time, take the money, and run, and then return to my moral platitude afterward.

Well, why shouldn’t you, in the examples you mentioned? 🙂 Smoking is a choice, after all, and people are responsible for whether they choose to smoke or not. If they do choose to smoke, they’re going to smoke some brand, whether it’s Camels or Marlboro or whatever. So by promoting one over the other you’re not making any difference to whether they smoke or not. The same goes for so-called “assault” rifles. Most people shoot them for sport anyway, and wouldn’t dream of killing innocent people. If they’re insane enough or evil enough to want to do that, they’re going to do it anyway, so what difference does it make if you urge people to buy a Colt rather than a Bushmaster, or vice versa? I don’t suppose you’d see anything wrong with promoting Ford or Chevrolet. Just because some maniac in New York used his truck to mow down a bunch of cyclists and pedestrians, that doesn’t make motor vehicles “evil” in themselves. It’s the way some people choose to use these things that can be “evil,” and the rest of us aren’t responsible for their behavior.

I do have to agree that it’s hard to find an “awakened” politician. Being in positions of power leaves them so out of touch with the ordinary people they’re supposed to be representing. No matter which party they belong to, they’re surrounded by “yes-men” and “yes-women” who echo their own insular views and beliefs back to them instead of challenging them. The most egregious example had to be that Clinton woman insulting a vast section of the population by labeling them a “basket of deplorables.” With that one remark alone she just alienated millions of the ordinary Americans that the Democratic party was traditionally supposed to stand up for. I’m not pretending Trump is so great either, but that woman deserved to lose the election with a snooty, contemptuous attitude like hers. Heaven knows why people pay her millions to give speeches. I wouldn’t pay her a penny to hear garbage like that!

Redwald, I guess you have to pick your poison. A snooty (but mentally stable) woman vs Caligula. I would have chosen the snooty woman. Being as this is a site about sociopaths, I don’t need to tell you that being charming and seductive and catering to what the masses want to hear does not make one a decent person. Especially now, that it is coming out that Trump raped a 13 y.o. taking pleasure in the fact that she looked like his daughter. Give me the snooty woman any day. When I hear the bigoted, racist, misogynist things coming from Trump, I myself might have a few choice words for the masses who would support that, thinking he is on their side. It seems in our society, a woman cannot have any negative traits without being villified. But a man can be Satan himself, and his bad behaviors are excusable. We have a long way to to in this country.

As for the guns and cigarettes, I brought those subjects up because they are two that I’m very passionate about. To tell someone to go out and buy an assault rifle or a cigarette for any reason would go against my values and morals. It might be easier for someone else who didn’t feel so strongly.

Pick our poison, eh? Stargazer, I think that’s a very appropriate way to express the choices we had last November! 😉

Speaking of “poison”—at least in the form of nicotine and assorted carcinogens—although I gave up smoking nearly thirteen years ago (and I’ve no doubt my health is the better for it), I’ve never regretted smoking, because I enjoyed it at the time! I wonder whether you ever smoked yourself. I understand that some ex-smokers seem to have a “love-hate relationship” with tobacco. Once they’ve given it up, they harbor a lingering resentment against the substance they regard as having “held them in thrall” for many years; they perform a volte-face and become virulent anti-smokers. But I was never like that. I’m glad to have lived in an age when we could enjoy smoking without people getting on our backs about it all the time.

That’s not to say it’s a good thing to encourage smoking, and if people want to publicize the dangers of smoking or to be protected from smoke themselves, that’s all fine and dandy. But too many people in recent decades have gone further by trying to force others to give up smoking whether they want to or not! There are too many people today trying to control the lives of others instead of minding their own business. As a libertarian, that’s an attitude I oppose. I often think “why can’t people just leave one another alone?” This may sound odd, but in certain respects I think one of the many things wrong with our society today is that some people don’t have enough to do to keep them occupied with a purpose in life. They fill that void by meddling in the lives of others, pretending it’s “for their own good”—which is one of the world’s biggest lies, as Alice Miller pointed out in her book of the same name. That naturally causes frustration for others.

As for Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t call her all that stable either. Trump as we know is arrogant and bombastic and “shoots from the hip,” but he’s just flagrantly obvious about it. Far too obvious to be a psychopath, in my opinion! Hillary, however, is known to have a vile temper. There are so many accounts going back for many years of her “losing it,” shrieking obscenities at her Secret Service guards when she was in the White House just because she was in a bad mood. There were reports of her throwing a temper tantrum simply because Matt Lauer asked her a question her aides “hadn’t briefed her on,” and that she had a “total meltdown” after discovering she’d lost the election, with rumors about throwing a water glass at a staffer and heaven knows what. Of course most of those present with her at the time denied these reports—naturally, because most of them are her loyal supporters who cover up for her! But these reports are so numerous and so consistent that I’m forced to believe there’s “no smoke without fire.” One account says Hillary banned the use of cellphones at her meetings with her fellow campaigners. Could that be because she did not want her private behavior recorded in audio or video? She would not be the first person to behave very differently in private from the way she does in public. (Harvey Weinstein is another.) Among well known female heads of state, I can’t imagine, say, Maggie Thatcher or Mary Robinson or Angela Merkel (even if I don’t like her politics) or (digging back a long way) Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir acting this way. They had far more dignity and self control. People have their opinions of course, for whatever those opinions are worth, but more than one self-appointed analyst has characterized Hillary Clinton as NPD.

I’m not sure why you said it is “now coming out” that Trump “raped” a 13-year-old girl. All I’m aware of is a highly dubious claim last year by a woman calling herself by the fictitious name of “Katie Johnson,” which had next to no credibility and was withdrawn over a year ago. As far as I know it’s dead in the water, and always was. There’s an article about it here:

Woman withdraws legal claim she was assaulted at Jeffrey Epstein sex party

What I found striking about this was that although the leftist-biased “mainstream” media HATE Donald Trump like poison and were always itching to get their hands on anything that might discredit him, they wouldn’t touch this story with a bargepole! There was next to nothing about it in the main news outlets. What that suggests to me is that journalists in the know smelled a rat about this story right from the beginning, and didn’t want to follow it up because they knew they’d end up with egg on their faces. Apparently this Johnson woman filed a claim in New York and it was tossed out, then she tried it again in California, changing her story along the way. She’s not exactly a reputable witness, a drug addict with a history of DUIs and felony drug possession, and she didn’t even pretend to know it was Trump who raped her (if anyone did), only that some guy did and she afterwards came to believe it was Trump from seeing him on TV years later! That’s hardly reliable testimony. And why did she wait 23 years until an election year to try bringing this lawsuit?

The whole thing sounds like a TRUMPed-up charge! (Sorry, couldn’t resist that pun!) The people backing this Johnson woman included Gloria Allred (the “usual suspects”), but just when she was due to give a press conference, she backed out at the last minute, claiming she’d received “death threats.” I don’t believe that! They never had a case, but they had to make up some excuse to save face. Funny she backed out just a few days before the election, hoping no doubt that even the publicity due to the cancellation would negatively affect the Trump campaign. But it didn’t change the outcome, and the only question in my mind is whether this woman was simply a gold-digger hoping for money, whether the motives were political, or a combination of both.

About Trump himself, I wouldn’t call him “charming and seductive” in the least. He’s far too brash for that. [Edited to add: If he had been charming, he would have won in a landslide. As it was, many people voted for him despite not liking him personally.] As for the third thing you mentioned—“catering to what the masses want to hear”how else can a politician possibly win an election? After all, what people want to know is what a politician is going to do for them to make their lives better.

And despite certain improvements in our material standard of living, I’m sure life is subjectively worse for many people today than it was, say, a couple of generations ago. Turning for a moment to the “gun” issue, while those mass shootings are carried out by mentally and personality disordered people, they never used to happen at anything like the same rate we’re seeing today. They used to be rare events. Charles Whitman in 1966. Before him, Howard Unruh in 1949. After Whitman, nothing to speak of for a couple of decades until the San Ysidro McDonald’s shooting in 1984.

It was in the 1980s that a trickle of people started “going postal” on a small scale, while mass shootings started to take off in the 1990s with Luby’s, Columbine and the rest. (And don’t forget the worst of all, the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.) Since then the “trickle” has become a flood. That can’t be because we have so many more psychopaths and mentally disordered people than we used to thirty-odd years ago. We’ve always had one or two, from the worst school bombing of all in 1927 to Gilbert Twigg killing nine people with his double-barreled shotgun back in 1903. These are nihilistic acts, acts of desperation that invariably end the killer’s life as well.

I don’t doubt the reason we’re seeing so many more of them today is because the frustrations of today’s society are greater than they used to be. Another indication of this is the increase in the suicide rate, particularly among young people, which is very worrying. Most of that had also happened by 1980.

All of our material progress can’t compensate for what people have lost over the past couple of generations. A great many freedoms for one, as we’re hedged about with more and more petty restrictions and rules. We live in a more punitive society than we used to. Even the age-old freedom of children to walk and play free and unsupervised is hampered today. We’ve lost a sense of community, as so many physical communities (and the support they offered) have broken up and people have drifted away. But we’ve also lost values, and trust, and faith—not only religious faith, which is important to many, but a broader sense of faith in the future. Too many have lost the pride we used to have: as a people, as a nation. That was important to people’s self esteem, both individual and collective.

Most important is the loss of security, both financial and—which is just as important—emotional security. Too many people can’t find an adequately paying job today, or count on it continuing. And too many people’s lives are devastated by the breakdown of marriage and family, both as children and as adults. All this can result in the loss of a sense of purpose in life, which is fatal.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, and no politician can hope to fix them all. But one major cause of the loss of paying jobs is globalization, and that’s one trend Trump promised to try and reverse. Anyone who can succeed in restoring the prosperity of the shrinking middle class is a winner. Along with that, his campaign slogan was to “make America great again.” Sure, anyone can throw a slogan around, and maybe it comes to nothing. But what he was offering people was a restored sense of pride. And that, as I mentioned, is another thing, no matter how intangible, that many people have lost over the past couple of generations.

What did Hillary Clinton have to offer by comparison? Part of her problem was that she didn’t have a real message. Mostly what she stood for was “more of the same,” and considering the ways our society has been deteriorating, I’d say that’s the last thing we need. Trump was offering to reverse some of the trends. Yet that “deplorables” remark of hers also, in my view, epitomized the very reason why she lost the election, taking into account not just the word itself, but the context and the audience.

Specifically, she elaborated on the remark by labeling Trump’s supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.” This is exactly the same tiresome yada-yada-yada we’ve been bombarded with by leftists for decades now, not to mention man-hating radfems denigrating maleness in general. As for “racist,” they make that claim on so slight an excuse these days that the word has virtually lost its meaning. It’s hypocrisy too, an excuse to trot out their own misandry and anti-white racism. But the way these people run Americans and Western society down with accusations like this stands in polar opposition to Trump’s campaign slogan, which aimed to restore people’s pride—the pride that leftists have been attacking and undermining for far too long. Which of the two would most people prefer to hear?

“Most people” is the operative phrase, because she was speaking at an “LGBT for Hillary Gala.” I dare say they appreciated her remarks. But the fact remains that she was addressing an audience representing about two percent of the population while expressing contempt for anything up to half of the population who were leaning toward Trump. Nothing could be more calculated to leave people thinking that all Hillary and her elitists care about is their favored minorities, and they couldn’t give a fig for the rest of us, the Great Majority out here.

[Oops, that was a long post!]

Hi Redwald, I will take the time to read your entire post a little later, but I wanted to respond to your question about smoking. No, I have never smoked. My parents were chain smokers and subjected us to the second hand smoke to the point where I got very sick from it. For instance, we used to have cross country trips where they’d both smoke in the car with the windows rolled up. Consequently, I developed an allergy to it. It gives me sinusitis and bronchial symptoms. I personally don’t care if people smoke as long as it is away from me.

Regarding your comments about Hillary, I believe she carries the extra burden of being a woman in a male-dominated society and is scrutinized to a greater extent than her male counterparts. This is a frustration most women feel, though they may not even be aware of it. I have given this much thought in the past year, and being a woman myself, I understand how a woman must fight twice as hard for the same respect as a man. When a woman raises her voice, she is unstable, hysterical, or an angry bitch. When a man raises his voice, he is a man. This is not to excuse whatever corrupt things she has done or to say that I liked her all that much – I didn’t. Nor would she have been my first choice for Democratic candidate. But I know for myself, I have had to yell extra loud and fight extra hard to be heard when dealing with men. I have thrown a few temper tantrums myself just to be heard and it was the only thing that worked. I am dealing with a bunch of male contractors right now. They minimize me, belittle my concerns, and hardly even listen to me. It’s very frustrating.

Donald Trump stands to tear down everything our country stands for, including freedom of speech and the press. He doesn’t care about human rights, civil rights, animal rights, or the environment. He is a flagrant narcissistic personality disorder who stands to further his pursuit of power and money through the presidency. He is a con artist who doesn’t stand for anything except himself. I can’t even compare him to Hillary who has at least paid her dues working as a public servant for many years. She is at least willing to work, she is smart, and she does her homework. To me, there is no comparison.

Agreed.

There is no comparison between these two.

There is one big difference, however. One is human, albeit perhaps not the warmest human. The other one, seems to have no humanness in HIM. None.

‘HIM’ being the telltale word here.

How can anyone support this man in any way at all?? I cannot wrap my head around even the possibility that anyone could.

Just to clarify, I am talking about Hillary Clinton and…Donald Trump (whose name I can barely say, let alone, type).

I don’t know Bev, but the evangelical Christians worship him. I think – and even hope – we are heading for a civil war. I think that might be the only fix. I don’t really want to live in a place that puts a slime bucket like him on a pedestal and worships him.

Yes, I have seen that on the news. All sorts of god loving women coming forward to defend him…

Another civil war. Can you imagine? The USA is so divided in so many ways, it would not be a surprise.

I agree. Also, let’s not forget about the slime bucket that has somehow ‘forest gumped’ his way into the presidency. How can this even be real, I wonder all the time.

Ah, with an unfortunate history like that, Stargazer, I can certainly understand your dislike of smoking! Often (not always, but often) there is something personal behind the issues.

Redwald, Similarly, I’ve had a personal experience with a loaded gun when I was just 7 years old, so I have very strong feelings about gun control, as well. This is why when I say I might be tempted to promote cigarettes or assault rifles for a million dollars, it would be such a big sellout of my values. The point of my comment was that power and money corrupts.

Omg, Stargazer, come and live with all of us in Canada.

We have no ‘second amendment’. We do not believe that we are all ‘entitled’ to own guns. We do not have the same attitude that many Americans have about guns. We believe that only the police and actual hunters who have to eat what they kill to live, should have guns. Simple.

We also don’t have a slime bucket representing our country…thank goodness.

Bev, I love Canadians – I know many of them. I would definitely consider moving there. I don’t know if I could take the cold, though. I am considering a move to another country, though. The love affair Americans have with guns runs very deep and is akin to worship. They actually put gun rights above the lives of children. It is totally incomprehensible to me that we should sacrifice human lives for a metal killing machine. I think Canadians have a much healthier relationship to guns.

It is really difficult for ‘us’ to understand that love affair with guns. Really difficult.

It is like you say, incomprehensible that this love would come before life.

I (we) know there are MANY Americans who do not have that ‘love’ for guns. I (we) also know that congress is not listening. I (we) also know that could have much to do with money from the ever powerful NRA.

We know all of these things. We can only hope that these things change. It doesn’t seem likely.

You are exactly right, and it somehow got tied in with the religious right and some sort of bastardized version of Christianity. There was a story in the news today of a man demonstrating gun safety in a church. It accidentally went off shooting his wife and kid. “That’s the price of freedom” they say. I don’t think there will be a president who can unify a country like this where this kind of thinking persists. Best to just give them their own territory, and let the rest of us live in peace.

I agree completely.

I have a friend in nova scotia who loves his guns. not all canadians are antigun. just sayin.

There are and will always be some of those people, everywhere.

Canadian gun laws, however, are vastly different from American gun laws.

and these kinds of behavior has gone on, for YEARS; and yet, Hollywood thinks they have the ‘right’ to preach at us ordinary folks for our bad behavior..and they do the same things themselves.

wpDiscuz

Send this to a friend