Streisand’s Pedo Rollout

We all know that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia, and that their hive of demented nastiness has been slowly trying to normalize it for a while now.  It starts with movies that push the envelope, like in the deleted scenes of Léon: the Professional in 1994, to the scene in Con Air from 1997 that does a scene tease, making you think that a little girl becomes the latest victim of a character who is a child rapist/killer according to plot, yet becomes a hero at the end…  Fast forward a few years, and Hollywood is being exposed as a haven for pedophiles – an exposé led by Corey Feldman and others, then being completely hijaked by #MeToo feminists – but that doesn’t stop these Studio City sickos from being part of the leftist beachhead that continues pushing for the normalization of heretofore unthinkable things like “drag kids” and puberty blockers.

No, it’s not a wildfire contained to the hills of Hollywood, as this news segment from Houston, Texas of all places will make clear…

“Stinky cheese!!”

“Start ’em when they’re young!”

Yeah, that’s KHOU-11, a CBS affiliate.  Is “stinky cheese” a queer culture slang term for smegma or something?  I don’t know but that ain’t right.  That whole thing ain’t right.

Anyway, we know that Hollywood is ground zero for this push to warp kids, and it’s probably not going to come as much of a surprise which side of the fight Barbara Streisand lands on…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6841461/Barbra-Streisand-says-Michael-Jacksons-accusers-thrilled-there.html

‘You can say “molested,” but those children, as you heard [grown-up Robson and Safechuck] say, they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them,’ she said.

What have we always been told about the dangers of suggesting that a female rape victim was “asking for it”?  Does it not matter because the victims are males, and the perpetrator is…well, ambiguous…?

I mean why would someone publicly say something so fucked up?  Is it because she’s a woman, she thinks she’s impervious to any kind of consequences?  Well, maybe she is.  I know that if some single old incel with no money who lives by himself said that, he’d be in jail before an investigation even began.  Barbara Streisand?  Hell, she’ll probably be the next wacko to jump into the 2020 presidential race.

‘His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has.’

No, it actually doesn’t work that way, cunt.  First of all, if you even think that a guy needs to touch little boys, it’s a sure sign that he’s malfunctioning, mentally – and so are you, cunt; secondly, his “needs” don’t trump the laws, much less the dignity of a young boy.

Hollywood pedophiles, like sickos everywhere, get to a point where their sickness cannot be hidden any longer, and it starts leaking out and becomes visible.  What she is saying is just a small indicator of the kind of festering that has been going on there, among the celebrities and the powerful elite of Tinseltown.  Let’s hope that the inevitable California fires this summer immolate a bunch of that riffraff.

8 comments

  1. ‘His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has.’

    Look, all of us have a dark side. A place where we think about things that we should not. But for fuck’s sake, that place is where those things should remain. FOREVER. I can say this, because at the moment, I am thinking VERY unpleasant thoughts about my father, not in a malicious way but a compassionate way. Because he is going through HELL at the moment, and so am I and the rest of the family.

    And ain’t it funny, that Striesand makes light of these allegations, because she is a Jew, and a woman, so she already has permanent victim hood mentality, and Michael Jackson was BLACK…despite his efforts to cover up and deny the fact…whereas if he had been a working class hetro WHITE guy, in her eyes he would be the lowest of the fucking low.

    There is a problem with paedophilia And the problem is this; if you are one of the Protected Classes (Black/Gay/Celebrity/Lesbian/Female), there will ALWAYS be someone who will make excuses for such behaviour, and you will get away with it for a VERY long time. One only need look at the Jimmy Saville case here in the UK.

    1. Not only that, but how about Jeffery Epstein and his “Lolita Express” jet plane (which former president Bill Clinton flew on 26 times, according to flight records) and his island where all kinds of pedophilic acts took place? Pedos in high places.

      “Look, all of us have a dark side. A place where we think about things that we should not. But for fuck’s sake, that place is where those things should remain. FOREVER.”

      I think that’s true, for most people at least. There are things you’d find in the dark recesses of the human mind that would be beyond scandalous if discovered, and range far wider in variety than kiddie-diddling. There is quite a bit of religious thought (I know you don’t buy any of it – I’m not preaching it, but just citing it for the record) that when we get to the other side, ALL will be revealed, including everyone’s darkest thoughts and deeds, to everyone else who ever lived. Can you imagine such a scenario? I don’t think it’s expected to be a situation where we sit and listen to the rap sheets of every person who ever lived being read off, but more like seeing the sum total of a person as some kind of mental, spiritual and metaphysical collage of that person’s attributes, acts and decisions – kind of like seeing a perfectly circumspect view of everything about the person, all at once, juxtaposed with everyone and everything else. I think we can all agree that it would be impossible for any mere mortal to make sense of a vast tableau like that, in our incarnate forms; so if it goes down that way, I would expect that we’d each be in the form of beings with perfect perspective and understanding of all things, without any limitations on our ability to see exactly what it all is and what it really means…if that makes sense. Again, I’m not preaching that idea to you, but merely presenting the concept as a kind of contrast to a reality in this life that we all accept: the very fallible and unfair interpretation of a given individual’s deep, dark, dirty secrets by imperfect, relatively foolish people who see these things and don’t have access to the divine, perfectly circumspect understanding of them. In short, mere mortal men do not have access to the darkest recesses of your mind for very good reason – they could never fairly judge what all they would see, and moreover, the skeletons in their own mental closets are not visible, which is a clear imbalance. God help us if they ever invent a brain scan that picks up all of these things and can be deployed against people without their consent (think about that episode of Red Dwarf where Rimmer was mind-probed and charged with the deaths of all crew members) but even the privacy concerns of the cyber world are valid for the same reasons, even if the implications don’t even scratch the surface of a non-consensual mind probing.

      So, what does that have to do with Jacko, Streisand and all the rest? Well, there is a clear line between what mere mortals can judge a given individual’s sickness by, and what they can’t: that individual’s actions. As you say, dark thoughts need to remain where they are FOREVER. Whatever one thinks or does* in their secret life is their own dominion, but as soon as a person allows their demons to become someone else’s ordeal, that is where you have crossed the line. This is why there is not a shred of validity in what Streisand is saying. First and foremost, Jacko’s “sexual needs” are not needs at all – they are desires that stem from mental illness, and he simply does not have the right to fulfill them with immature young boys.

      Here’s the straight-dope: whatever people say about the meaning of sex, whatever people have turned it into, it’s fundamentally about reproduction; and as such, for a person to have their sexual cross hairs aimed not at sexually mature members of the opposite sex, but sexually immature members of the same sex, is clearly a malfunction. Now I get it – there are plenty of manifestations of sexual malfunction in this world, and I’m certainly not for penalizing it all. Hell, if we did that, everything from oral sex, to masturbation, to birth control should be penalized – oh I know, Puritans would be delighted…until you get that mind probe up and running! Even kissing should probably penalized under that standard, right? What reproductive utility does kissing have? How about breast-fondling of the wife? Or how about foreplay, to make sure she orgasms? She doesn’t need to have an orgasm to reproduce, and yet there is her clitoris, ready to go…and now you know why radical Muslims make it a point to cut it clear off, but I digress… My point is that I’m not for a sexual police state at all, but certain things do cross the line, and most people rightly agree that the line is clear, and runs between adult and childhood, as well as between willing and unwilling participation.

      That cunt, Barbara Streisand, goes to the point of essentially acknowledging the allegations but moves the line, I guess because she thinks that Jacko’s celebrity and prominence means that he had a right to actualize his sexual malfunctions, over these boys’ rights to their own physical sovereignty and dignity; not only that, but she basically says that their ability to marry (and in essence, receive female validation) is proof that no real harm was done. Boy, wouldn’t that be something if a marriage license offered concrete proof of being a fully-functioning, perfect human being? Hmm, seems to me that you and I have heard that rhetoric in other places…

      *Now, about that asterisk.. Is everything a person does, sexually or otherwise, in their secret life, their own dominion? This is where libertarian principle and practical concern get dicey, regarding the concept of thoughtcrime. Let’s start off with what Jacko should or shouldn’t have been able to do in his secret life, so long as they didn’t involve children… Should he have been allowed to look at child pornography? Word is that he had it coming out of his ears, a 2003 raid discovered. I can’t believe he was acquitted, but there you go…he’s Michael Jackson. Just like how Jimmy Page and Robert Plant probably ripped off the opening arpeggio from Spirit’s song Taurus (1968) for their own song Stairway to Heaven (1971) – they too prevailed in a southern California court because they’re Led Zeppelin. Likewise, O. J. Simpson got away with killing his wife and her lover because he’s O. J. Simpson (no wonder so many sick, corrupt losers live down there – celebrities are obviously above the law in southern California). Anyway, I’m not a legal scholar, but as I understand it, the theory goes that a pedophile with pictures of kids does indeed exploit those children by possessing them, whether the kids themselves are aware of it or not; there is also a supply-and-demand argument, suggesting that looking at that stuff creates support for kids being photographed and molested, upstream from one’s private masturbatory felonies in front of their computers. I guess I don’t know enough about the pedo scene to understand how well-founded those theories are (thankfully – I don’t what to know any more than these exposés on politicians and celebrities have told us – it’s already more than I ever wanted to know, frankly), but I can see a strict libertarian arguing that we’re talking about acts that, while not precisely “thoughtcrime” themselves, are at least based on thoughtcrime in principle. Well, maybe there is some truth to that, but I am going to say that they should stand anyway, simply because there is no better alternative. What else can you do?

      Let’s say that some pedophile – that is, a person who is sexually attracted to kids – gets caught with…nude drawings of kids; or, maybe photos of kids that aren’t nude. Now what? Is anyone going to be any more comfortable about that person roaming the streets, knowing that he’s inclined that way? As far as I know, there is nothing they can charge the person with, but that’s not going to make the parents in the neighborhood feel any better about this person sitting on a park bench, eyeing their kids with bad intent. So what do we do about that? They damn sure would do something if they could, but the law restrains them; if you made it a felony to possess pictures of kids, pornographic or otherwise, then anyone with a family photo album, a department store catalog, etc. is headed for jail. How could you slice and dice up judgements about what materials some adult supposedly used to masturbate to without throwing a lot of non-pedos in prison, and letting a lot of real pedos off the hook? Well you can’t leave it to the opinion of those in the community, because they are going to abuse it and selectively acquit and convict people based on how well-liked or not they are – something that broad, vague and severe will inevitably be weaponized. So I guess that the serious consequences of possessing child porn are probably as close as they can get to prosecuting thought, because a). they have to successfully argue that the person knowingly took possession of such material, which is an act, not a thought per se, and b). the presence of that material in one’s possession is probably even harder evidence than allegations of molesting children – I suspect this is why child porn carries longer prison sentences than molestation or even rape, because the case is more solid. In other words, they have to draw a solid line somewhere, and it’s not going to serve perfect justice always, but it’s not like there are any better alternatives.

      See I think that they’re not going for perfect law here, but rather they are applying it for practical reasons. They can’t simply do nothing and let it all happen, because the consequences are too dire. Needless to say, no one wants to simply trust that a known pedophile is going to keep a lid on it, and keep his or her sexual attraction to kids where it belongs, and away from their kids, because when kids get molested, it screws them up royally, and is said to be the reason many of them turn out gay or pedophile themselves. It’s like letting Iran and North Korea have nukes – the mere potential is too much, even though, in principle, it’s hypocritical or not philosophically sound to forbid them.

      Here’s another thought… Perhaps (I’m just speculating here) child porn laws are one of the few things that keep the angry mob of Protestant parents from lynching every person even suspected of being a pedophile. Maybe one could argue that those and other thoughtcrime laws (?) may not be perfect in their application, but at least they give parents and the rest of the community at least one lever to pull against pedophiles – if you couldn’t even get them for possessing pictures of naked kids, then you might see a Salem witch trial situation erupt, where accusations fly and people’s houses get burned down. Should people’s self-righteous sensibilities be pacified so as to prevent them from forming a vigilante mob? Well, there are examples of that all around us. It’s all a big compromise. Let’s just hope it doesn’t descend into Sharia law.

      And by the way…that’s another way that this big push by Hollywood to normalize sexual deviance and drag kids into it could prove dangerous. Don’t believe what the entertainment industry and the leftist-media complex tells you – their efforts are not being received well by the public, and if they’re allowed to go too far with it, you may indeed see some vigilantism. Parents love their kids more than themselves, and uh, let’s just say that it’s unwise to provoke their defenses.

      Anyway, there are other examples of doing things in one’s secret life that are not permitted by law, and those laws are also hard to argue against (to the average person) when you get out of libertarian idealism and down to the practical, even if you cultivated/fabricated/procured without anyone else’s involvement – possession of fully automatic weapons, weapons-grade nuclear material, certain scheduled drugs…I don’t know… I’ll let more skilled libertarians than myself argue on those points.

      As for people who are, for whatever reason, sexually attracted to children…well, simply put, don’t possess any naked pictures of kids and you’ll be fine, as far as I know. As for all of us non-pedophiles…even more simply put, you better hope and pray that none of that shit ends up crossing your path in some unlikely fluke, particularly without your knowledge, because it won’t matter how or why – your life will be officially over. If it happens and you do know it, then you better know how to completely scrub it – not just *think* you know but be absolutely correct about it – or else you better destroy that device completely. I didn’t see it go down myself, but at one place I used to work, there was an employee who opened an e-mail that they thought was from a partnering company, and SURPRISE!!! It had child porn in it!! Just imagine that…you aren’t surfing the dark web or anything like that…you’re just doing your job, and next thing you know, TAG! YOU’RE IT! The cops will be there in 20 minutes to haul you off! Now what do you do? I can only assume that they reported it, but in any case, but I think I heard that they scrubbed that computer, and they would know how to do it right. Hitting delete doesn’t cut it. Like I say, it doesn’t matter what the circumstances are – you will be in prison for longer than a rapist, if that shit is ever recovered. I once read an article where the cops said that busting people with child porn “is like shooting fish in a barrel” – we can hope that they are talking about detecting the crime – and it would be, with all of the forensic networking tools at their disposal – but for safety sake, you should probably assume that they’re talking about getting convictions.

  2. I’ll tell you what gets me. For you and I. the laws preventing the sexual abuse of children are pretty fucking unequivocal. And they should be. Maybe someone ought to explain this to the Muslims. A lot of whom think a nine year old boy or girl are fair game. And whilst they are at it, maybe the should explain to the Jimmy Savilles of this world that CHILDREN ARE NOT TO BE FUCKING TOUCHED. Unless of course you are a Muslim, or another one of the protected classes.

    And isn’t it ironic, how society is ready to tar and fucking feather an Incel guy, for even LOOKING at a female, in the wrong way, yet this fucking INSTITUTIONALISED fucking SICKNESS somehow manages to get swept under the carpet?

    From this we can gather who REALLY calls the shots in society. It certainly is not the law of the land. Look at that Jizzlamic cunt in Germany who raped a ten year old boy at a swimming baths, and he cited a ‘Sexual Emergency’ for his actions. I had a sexual emergency for most of my adult life. I did not commit rape, AND MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT, commit rape on a minor.

    But of course, I was an Incel, so I guess I deserved all of my suffering didn’t I?

    I am SICK of there being one set of standards for me, and another for every other fucker. So I will tell you what I am going to do from now on. And no, it does not involve fiddling with children.

    I am going to do whatever I have to in order to survive financially. If that means breaking the law then so be it.

    1. Yes, I think we can wax rhetorical all we want but the facts are becoming unavoidable: politicians – “rulers” if you will – of Europe and everywhere else in the west where Muslims get a pass to sexually (and otherwise) assault non-Muslims in particular, of all ages (and you can see those stories in the news every single day of every year now) are CLEARLY IMPORTING AND USING MUSLIMS AS A BATTERING RAM AGAINST THEIR OWN NATIVE PEOPLE. Yes, I’m going to go there – this is a plot by “secret societies” (the actual secrecy of which are relative) to topple normal civil order and impose tyranny.

  3. And just fucking where does a self righteous cunt like Barbara Streisand get to pontificate on matters of CRIMINAL LAW eh? So nobody died. Whoop ee fucking DO. That bastard (Michael Jackson), got away for DECADES with the same shit that Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris did here in the UK – using their positions in society as cover for their warped actions. THOSE ARE THE FACTS, BITCH. Oh, but Michael Jackson had his ‘sexual needs’. Hah! What about MY sexual needs? – just be be treated as a normal human being for fucking ONCE, just getting some intimacy when I badly needed it, without having to negotiate my way through a field of FEMALE BS, y’know the same kind of needs that you, I and every other Incel guy has? What about that shit eh?

    Oh but it’s one set of values for us and another set for every other bastard isn’t it? My father is lying in a hospital bed, unable to feed himself or even wipe his own ass. He was put there by the fucking INCOMPETENCE of others. There is nothing that would help me more at this point, than some simple human compassion. Oh but I am once of those nasty Incel/MGTOW men. I don’t deserve it do I?

    Ms Streisand, shut your fucking gynocentric fucking pie chute, before someone shuts it for you.

  4. Well yeah, that might smack of poetic justice, of a sort. As I said earlier, what pisses me off is that the ‘Protected Classes’ seem to have a handy dandy, ‘get out of jail free’ card that they are able to play in a variety of different situations.

    It pisses me off man, because at the moment, my whole family and I are going through a VERY tough time, and we are having to fight every inch of the way fro everything. Nobody is there to bail us out. Nobody is there to defend us. All I want is some kind of justice for my father.

    Bitches like her make me sick. Of course she is part of Hollywood royalty, so everything she says or does is important, according to the media. Whereas, you and I are not even worth the price of a dried up dog turd.

    1. And now you from where comes the American conservatives’ chant, “Lock her up! Lock her up!” Hillary Clinton crimes range from violating and breaching national security, to running a multi-billion dollar money laundering scheme, to obstruction of justice, to provoking and orchestrating wars that have gotten countless people killed (and related issues like intentionally allowing one of our ambassadors to be slaughtered by Muslims), foreign election meddling (Ukraine, et al) and there are even allegations about child trafficking (“relocation” of Haitian children after the earthquake) and drug smuggling operations going back to her days in Arkansas in the ’80s. There is something called the “Clinton Body Count” that you can look up online, cataloging all of the many people with various connections to, or run-ins with, the Clintons or their interests, who have turned up dead under suspicious circumstances. Seriously, Hillary Clinton makes that Argentine bitch Cristina Fernández de Kirchner look like a mere petulant teenager by comparison. If Hillary Clinton would have received the same kind of justice that a normal plebeian person would have, she probably would have been executed several times over; but as she was running for president, the same FBI that has been on an almost 2-year long fishing expedition against the current president, and turned up nothing, had very real criminal violations by Hillary right in front of their fucking faces, on paper, in black-and-white, and they let her off the hook because, [gasp], she didn’t intend to break the law. Are you fucking kidding me? Would anyone else get off with that kind of special treatment? I mean it’s insane! Just do a search for the phrase “Hillary Clinton too big to jail”, if you really want or need more details on that.

      For fuck sake…not only all of that, but the bitch kept right on running for president, after having stolen the primary from one Bernard Sanders and skirting the law with the help of insider bureaucrats who gave her a pass that they wouldn’t give anyone else, and the bitch damn near became the president of the United States! We watched her lie, cheat and steal openly on her way to the top, and she damn near made it. Word on the street is that pings were coming from the CIA headquarters to the voting systems on election night, and the did manage to steal like four states before the white-hat anons got involved and intercepted.

      I guess when I look at it that way, she’s kind of a special case of dual justice – that is, her movements were bigger than her self, in the sense that it was an entire cabal of corruption and criminality in the US government, of which she was the spearhead…and they almost made it, but they were overwhelmed by Barack Hussein Obama’s antithesis: Donald Trump. I’m sure that makes the radial Muslim Obama feel good when his successor is his antithesis…not. In spite of all of Trump’s faults and ticks…I tell you it was a glorious evening on November 8th, 2016. I toasted champagne, literally – it was a $50 bottle and I saved the cork.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s