I used to enjoy going to the cinema. That was until I began looking behind the scenes and doing some serious research. When it became apparent that Hollywood is just one festering sore of alcoholics, drug abusers and rampant child rape it somewhat put me off feeding any more £ into it. No matter how much a film may now appeal to me I simply cannot bring myself to fund it knowing what I now know. I do not exaggerate when I say that there’s probably no child actor that isn’t preyed upon. Here are two random examples from the inside;
It seems impossible that even the most liberal person would condone the rape of a child. It’s unthinkable, but as Hollywood sinks lower and lower in the name of finding new uncharted territory in entertainment, we can no longer ignore the possibility. It’s no secret that the media industry sexualises children and has been doing so for years. Who can forget Shirley Temple’s cringe inducing dance scene in YOUNG PEOPLE? The child star and movie industry gold mine, who up until that time, had been the essence of childhood innocence, was depicted as a juvenile vaudeville moneymaker who thought that scanty clothes and sultry dancing was just a “normal” part of growing up in a showbiz family.
The movie marked the end of Shirley Temple’s reign as a child star. No matter how loud or often parents have raised their voices against the sexploitation of children in the media; it seems their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The reasons are simple. Adults are blinded by money, the children are eager and ignorant, and the paedophiles allow and encourage it.
In 2011, Cory Feldman spoke openly about being molested.
He said, “I can tell you the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be, paedophilia. That’s the biggest problem in this industry. I was surrounded by them when I was 14-years-old; literally surrounded. Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were, what they wanted, and what they were about, and the types of people who were around me. . . they were like vultures.”
Let’s move on a bit. I suppose you can all think of a prison based film and one in which the death penalty was a central theme. Two that spring to mind for me are The Green Mile and maybe The Shawshank Redemption. Ask yourself how the inmates who were central to the story were generally portrayed. Warm, mawkish, sentimental, Hollywood uses these triggers in order to get the person watching to feel sorry for the protagonist.
They are portrayed as beacons of absolute virtue fighting against an oppressive system and one dimensional guards who are always portrayed as brutal (apart from the mandatory liberal one).
The not so subtle impression that is left is that inmates are loving and kindly people with pet mice and an almost saintly quality and to ever think about executing such people is obviously an abomination.
Its really like a giant anti death penalty/feel sorry for the perpetrator propaganda campaign. People in Britain generally become pussies when you suggest the DP should be restored here. The last well known politician that I know of who wrote in favour of it was Michael Gove. But that was 20yrs ago and he didn’t mention it again.
The reason why the British curl their toes at the mere suggestion of the DP is purely because all their impressions have been formed from what they’ve seen at the cinema. The only exception to this would be if they are old enough to recall the noose when it was used here. Mention the DP to many liberal Brits and they’ll think that you’d be murdering some poor innocent boy who was simply misunderstood and needed a hug. They’ll picture literally thousands of innocents being wrongly put to death every month. They like to kid themselves that they are “more civilised” than that.
I note that there are absence of Hollywood movies in which the main character is portrayed more accurately to what you’d find in a US correctional facility – utter scumbags of the lowest order. You’d find sadists, psychopaths, child rapists, dog torturers, in fact you’d find almost every kind of human sewage that you can imagine – what you wouldn’t find is that saintly figure that Hollywood push onto you.
You have to wonder why Hollywood chooses to (relentlessly) pursue this line? You might have a case for saying that Hollywood was anti DP on moral grounds were it not for the fact that there is nothing but amorality in Hollywood. Not much morality to be found in an industry of drug addled paedophiles and mentally deranged lunatics. I think Hollywood takes the side of the perpetrator in these films because doing so is a reflection of their own nature – they identify with the perpetrator and care not for the victims.
Let’s leave Hollywood and that vile stench to one side for now and return to the UK itself. Time and again people ask me why this country is so insanely soft on two types of crime – child exploitation and animal abuse. They just cannot fathom why no mainstream party leader ever runs on a platform of getting seriously tough on such types. About 95% of people I speak to see it as an absolute vote winner for ANY party. Yet Labour, Tories, SNP, Liberal etc – not a single one of them incorporates this into party policy.
Its not like career politicians across all parties to miss out on a golden opportunity to pull in more voters. A party which promised a hard line approach to those who abuse kids and animals would be an obvious vote winner – no question. Maybe the public aren’t yet ready for the DP but they absolutely would vote for a party that was sincere about a hard line approach to those types of criminal. Why do none of them seize the day then? Why do all of them prefer to duck the issue and take the most liberal position possible?
I think its for much the same reasons that child raping amoral Hollywood take the side of the criminal – I think the political parties in this country are probably just slightly less awash with paedophiles, cocaine addicts and other assorted degenerates.
It wouldn’t take every single MP from every party to be that way. It would only take enough from the seniority of each party to use their influence and sway to ensure that the culture of leniency toward degenerates was maintained.
The simple truth is this – the reason why its possible in 2016 for dangerous paedophiles and animal abusers to walk free is that the establishment see the actions of the former to be potentially harmless and the actions of the latter to be merely acts of damage to ‘property’.
Take Harriet Harman as one good example.
Harriet Ruth Harman, QC (born 30 July 1950) is a British lawyer and Labour Party politician who has been a Member of Parliament (MP) since 1982, first for Peckham, and then for its successor constituency of Camberwell and Peckham since 1997. She has served in various Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet positions and, in her role as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, she was twice the Acting Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition: from May to September 2010 and from May to September 2015.
Following the 2015 General Election and Ed Miliband’s resignation, Harman again became acting leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition after announcing that she would stand down from this role once a Labour leadership election has taken place.
While interim leader, she made the decision for Labour to abstain, rather than oppose, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015, leading to 48 Labour MPs defying the whip. She is now the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Not exactly what you’d call a minor fringe figure in politics.
“… But she faces fresh criticism from Opposition MPs and campaign groups after The Daily Telegraph obtained documents showing that she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.
At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings. ….”
Hmm. Might just be me but I am very uneasy with a women like this being anywhere except perhaps in prison. Mull over these words – “unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed”. I cannot even compute this. Children who are abused are harmed by definition. It is really disgusting that this witch is still in the body politic and not under lock and key.
Note how these kinds of people always seem to end up being handed some high and mighty sounding role involving “human rights”. In her case it was Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I’m convinced that they use such roles to simply hide behind.
Those are your basic challenges – you have a haughty body politic awash with senior figures that appear extremely dubious in their past positions (to say the least). And you have a culture among them in which pets are property and that children are somewhat like property as well. You have senior political figures that were once pushing for leniency for those that are caught with child abuse material – so long as they personally hadn’t harmed the child it was apparently something and nothing in her eyes.
The answers? Aim high. A total purge of all the filth in our body politic, their arrest for crimes various and an example made of them.
A new mindset in which children and pets are not seen as objects and property and that under zero circumstances can sexual abuse or perversions ever be excused.
Instead the culpable should be absolutely hammered. Any politician who disagrees and should be removed from office.
Iceland sacked their entire Government and jailed quite a few of their own parasites. Thats how we must start thinking.
“Oh but it will be really hard to do though” the surrender monkey would cry. So? Name me any big historical victory that wasn’t hard to do? You have to start somewhere. We started in April. We’re always ready and motivated for a battle. We understand the many struggles we have and will face. But with the controlled rage of the public behind us I know that its a war that can be won. Win or not it is about the only war ever worth fighting. No one can be neutral in this.