Consent Theory on Trial: Weinstein Jury Appears to be Hung on Two Counts

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 22, 2020

Consent theory is the theory that the nature of a sexual act is based on how it makes a woman feel, and if it does not make her feel how she wanted it to make her feel, that sexual act is rape. Contemporary consent theory allows for a woman’s mind to change about how it made her feel not simply the next day or the next week, but a decade or more afterwards. The core of the theory is that all human interaction takes place only to please women, and if anything ever happens that does not please a woman, it is a criminal act.

The trial of Harvey Weinstein is consent theory on trial, and this verdict will determine the trajectory of applied consent theory.

The jury has deliberated for 4 days already. Now they’re saying they don’t agree, and they don’t know if they’ll even reach a verdict.

Remember: this is not the trial of Harvey Weinstein. This is the trial of all men. If Harvey goes down for decade-old rape hoaxes, then any woman you’ve ever had sex with can accuse you of rape at any time in your life, and you’ll go down too.

The Hollywood Reporter:

The jury asked the judge on Friday if they could be hung on two key counts and unanimous on the others. The judge told them to keep discussing.

The 12 men and women of the Harvey Weinstein jury pondered the possibility of being hung — or undecided — on two major charges and unanimous on the other charges.

But Judge James Burke told them to continue their deliberations until they reach a verdict on all the charges, after the prosecution said they would not accept a “partial verdict.”

In a note Friday afternoon that suggests disagreement among the panel, the jurors asked if they can be hung on the first and third charges — of predatory sexual assault — and unanimous on the other three charges.

Before the prosecution issued their disapproval, the Weinstein legal team said they would accept a partial verdict.
The first and third charges are for predatory sexual assault, which are the most serious charges and could net Weinstein a life sentence if convicted.

To convict Weinstein of predatory sexual assault, the jury must be convinced that he committed a first-degree sexual offense against Annabella Sciorra and either Miriam Haley or Jessica Mann, or both.

After calling the jury into the court room, the judge reassured them that it’s “not uncommon” for jurors to believe they will be unable to reach unanimous verdicts on all charges.

“As I told you in my initial instructions, any verdict you return, on any count, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous,” the judge said. “I will ask you to continue your deliberations.”

After dismissing the jury for the weekend, to return to their deliberations at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, the judge told them: “Don’t do anything that would put your health in jeopardy, because we cannot reach a unanimous verdict without all 12 of you.”

Is that some kind of courtroom humor? Or is it a suggestion that Harvey might have them killed?

I just really can’t even believe this is real life.

Their only ability to determine this is on the eyewitness accounts of these women. There is no other evidence.

Even if you’re a true and faithful believer in consent theory, how can you convict a man based on isolated eyewitness accounts over a decade later?

  • Annabella Sciorra: Claims Harvey raped her “sometime in the mid-90s” after he burst into her apartment against her will like he was a cop.
  • Miriam Haley: Claims Harvey forced cunnilingus on her in 2006 after she went alone with him to his apartment.
  • Jessica Mann: Claims that during a years-long sexual relationship she had with him, where she voluntarily had sex with him, he raped her in a hotel room against her will (no consent) in 2013. Afterward, she continued to casually have sex with him until 2017, while also getting him to help her do things like get into prestigious clubs (which he did, by the way – consistently, Harvey always held up his end of the deal; we may be dealing with the most straight-shooting Jew of all time).

None of these women claim to have been injured during the encounters. And Harvey admits to all of them, and simply describes them as consensual.

What the prosecutors are trying to say is that these three women experienced similar situations with Weinstein and that proves that this was rape (no consent). Well, what about the other 100 women who came out and accused him of having sex with them but did not press rape charges? They all said they were manipulated or abused or whatever the hell it is women say, but only a very few have said “rape.”

Of course, if this trial results in a conviction for Harvey, they will probably change their answer.

Consent Theory has become a black hole. Everything is being sucked straight into it. Anything that makes a woman feel bad is now “not consent,” which means it is rape, which means you have to go to prison.

This is the perfect case to implement this new precedent, because Harvey is a disgusting fat Jew with a penis that looks like a vagina and no testicles. People feel bad for women that had sex with him. Of course, women have absolutely no standards, and they will have sex with anything that they believe benefits their agenda, which is typically a quest for power. But men don’t want to believe women are that filthy. And women will just side with women.

So this will set the precedent for “yeah he was my boyfriend and we had consent sex for years, but this one time there was a no consent sex event so he has to go to prison.”

And then lawyers and counselors and the cops and everyone else will start encouraging women to do this to their boyfriends/husbands/whoever. Women will also encourage each other to do it.

Every man who has ever had sex will go to prison.

That’s of course hyperbole. But everyone who has ever had sex will necessarily be in a position where they can be sent to prison if a woman gives the word.

This also means you are permanently the hostage of any woman you’ve ever had sex with. If a woman you dated who you haven’t seen in ten years calls you up and demands that you do something, she doesn’t have to threaten you with withdrawing consent from the time you had sex in 2007. You know that she can do that, so the threat is implicit.

This is literal enslavement.

And honestly – it doesn’t matter if Harvey gets off. If he does, they will find some other disgusting sloppy kike with money who women had sex with and execute him. The fact is, the court accepted this lunacy, so they will keep accepting it until they get the result they want, which is a precedent for “all sex is rape.”

I advise you all to go full incel.

Seriously, are you getting anything out of hooking up with sluts on Tinder? What is the benefit? Is it not a waste of your vital essence anyway? And even if it is fun, surely it is not worth the risk?

You might think you’re above it. But the walls are closing in on us all. If you’re a chad you’re probably more likely to get crushed, because a woman you were with before might see you with another woman and decide to destroy you in order to punish the other woman. If you’re not a chad then it’s just as likely to happen to you – maybe she just thinks of you at some point and gets angry because you weren’t good enough for her and decides to call the cops and have you locked up for rape?

We all need to focus on Christianity, our work and our gains. Leave these filthy whores to fat Jews.