So I read this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#20cdf4277805

Gawker's founder is Nick Denton. Basically a British Gay guy, he founded Gawker at some point for unclear reasons. His background that led to its founding is unclear.

In the surface, Gawker is a gossip site. More specifically, it has a habit of calling out celebrities for being closeted gays. Gawker's business expanded to all lifestyle and interest topics that made sense in the online format. Gawker tried everything from consumer interest to porn, and their sites have ended up being those that were most popular.

It seems clear that the purpose of Gawker Inc is to develop a media presence that can then advance an agenda. In the most innocent sense, this involves tolerance and acceptance, particularly of gays, but extended to the whole realm of race and gender identity sensitivity and acceptance.

I say that this is innocent because it is. A gay guy who wants to try and make money making the world more tolerant of people like him is completely understandable.

But Gawker seems to have a dark side.

Item 1: defense industry circle-jerks. While the Gawker audience is lefty and anti war, Gawker itself seems to love the military. They have an entire staff writer dedicated to talking about military equipment. They spin every foreign policy issue to the extreme Pentagon perspective. For what it's worth, this could be a pro-Obama phenomenon. Still, it's odd.

Kotaku was embroiled in the infamous gamergate controversy, which seemed to have links to DARPA funded cultural projects concerning using media to shape culture (DiGRA).

Gawker sites are so singlemindedly and laughably hysterical concerning climate change catastrophe. While many of their articles are clickbait and poorly represent issues, climate change represents more than just an area of interest. It appears as if they are heavily trying to promote catastrophism as a matter of policy.

Sure, this can all be explained by the culture Gawker exists in, but since we know Gawker's founding is tied to promoting an agenda, it seems that the entire company can be thought of as a propaganda channel. Something keen power brokers would exploit.

Presumably, Gawker has backers and funders, so I bet the deep state is part of that.

If I had to bet, I'd guess Gawker is a George Soros organization. Or he funded it at some point. Denton himself could be a Soros agent. Or, maybe Soros just gave some money, or someone or something Soros affiliated.

News alert: politicians don't represent the voters. They're hired by rich behind-the-scenes patrons. This has been the case since at least Lincoln (but really long before). Yes, voters affect what politicians do, but they really more are managing voter sentiment on behalf of their patrons.

Deep state politics is the theory that all politics is just a story of silent behind-the-scenes actors competing for influence over society.

For example, Murray Rothbard believed that Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" progressive party was not a real movement, but a false movement funded by JP Morgan to spoil the Republican Party so that Woodrow Wilson the Democrat could be the first dem president in decades. The Republicans were controlled by the Rockefellers. So the politics going on we're really Morgan vs Rockefeller groups.

Gawker "targets" people. Why some and not others? Maybe Soros called in to Denton with an order from time to time.

Peter Thiel was an infamous target of Gawker. He is also deeply involved in Bilderberg. And yet, he leans Libertarian and towards the Kochs not Soros.

So maybe Gawker was acting as a Soros front to diminish Thiel as prt of a high level behind-the-scenes political move.

Thus, when Thiel funds Hogan to sue Gawker, it's more than a personal vendetta. It's part of power politics.

Oh, and there's no reason to think Soros and DARPA might not be linked. It's all a bunch of criminals up there anyway.