You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘abuse’ category.

I had stopped blogging, but I wanted to break the “fast” due to the Weinstein scandal.

This was my first reaction when the scandal broke: I’m very happy with it! I wake up with a smile on my face to read the articles and out-pour of testimonies and accusations and revelations about the rot of sexual harassment and violence in Hollywood and in society in general. Not to mention that most or all perpetrators involved so far in the Weinstein scandal are, wait for it, liberals!

You know, the people who think homosexuality, pornography, and promiscuity are normal – and who show themselves to be the personification of evil when it comes to their ethics and greed and immorality.

And not only that, these are the people who will malign to death any social conservative. We all know that if I applied for a job with these garbage of liberals, whether they are the victims or the perpetrators, and I disclosed my ethical and healthy views against homosexuality, pornography, and promiscuity, they would brand me a “bigot” and a “hater” and would deny me the job, preferring to give it instead to someone who has the same sexual sewer in their mind as they do.

And what is the result?

Violence. A society where homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity have been normalized cannot be anything else than a very sexually violent society.

Continue shining the light on the violent liberal sewer that is Hollywood. Including the pedophilia problem.

Advertisements

I haven’t seen the garbage of people who think homosexuality is normal demand answers from Milo on this: Which pedophiles did Milo expose? What are their full names? And what is the full name of the priest he says abused him? Let’s hear the stories.

Here’s betting a hundred quid, as they say over the pond, that no names will ever be produced, nothing that could identify anyone. Just totally made-up claims.

BTW, The Federalist, of all people!, actually published a good article, “good” as far as today’s sick American society standard goes, about homosexuality and child/teen abuse.

Excerpts:

“In the gay world,” Milo said later, “some of the most important, enriching and incredibly, you know, life-affirming, important, shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.” “Provided they’re consensual,” he added, “provided they’re consensual.”

During a different interview, with Joe Rogan, Milo talked approvingly of an alleged sexual encounter he had with a priest when Milo was around 14 years old. Milo also described attending Hollywood “boat parties” and “house parties,” where he saw things that “beggar belief.” As Milo put it: “some of the boys at [these parties] were very young. Very young.” Later, he reiterated for the third time: “There were some very young boys around at that time.” In spite of Rogan’s prompting, Milo refused to name anyone at these parties.

But wait: the perversity does not stop there. In a 2006 audio clip that resurfaced in the midst of the Milo debacle, Star Trek alumnus and liberal activist George Takei, who, like Milo, is gay, spoke fondly with radio host Howard Stern (and co-host Robin Quivers) about his sexual experience as a 13-year-old boy with an “eighteen or nineteen” year-old camp counselor.

At one point Stern asked Takei: “Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?” Takei replied: “No, no…I thought he was pretty attractive.” Stern and Quivers seem captivated and delighted by the story. Quivers prompts Takei for details—“Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?”—while Stern cracks wise: “Who wants a hand job without kissing?” Takei describes the experience: “It was both wonderful and scary and kind of intimidating, and delightful.”

Reflect on that for a moment: two adults were listening to a third adult describe an instance of genuine child sexual abuse, and were both happy and jocular about it.

There are two deeply appalling aspects to these sordid interviews. The first is the possibility that, as Milo put it, sexual relationships between young boys and adult gay men occur “very often.” At the Huffington Post last week, “gay conservative” Chad Felix Greene described his own experiences in this regard, having his first sexual encounters with adult men at age 14. As Greene put it, reflecting on the negative effect such behavior has had on his life and the need to stop this “generational pattern of abuse”: “As much as the LGBT world seems to ignore [older gay men having sex with young teenage boys], it seems fairly universal and unfortunately not time-bound to a period when young gay men had fewer options.”

Nevertheless, these revelations are unnerving and profoundly troubling, and the implications of these revelations are terrible, especially combined with many years of research showing disproportionately high rates of child sexual abuse against young gay males. Should we not consider the possibility that something both brutal and endemic is going on here, and that we’re simply ignoring it?

Yet there is another, even more troubling idea at work here: the possibility that these stories have been around for a long time, that many people have known about them for a long time, yet nobody has done anything about it, or even cared.

Consider: Milo’s interview with Rogan took place in September 2015, nearly 17 months ago. His statements on the livestream occurred more than a year ago, in January 2016. Yet his remarks and beliefs did not come to wide attention or constitute a scandal until very recently, when they were publicized by a conservative group opposed to his appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

If a grown male celebrity had spoken approvingly of having sex with 13-year-old girls, including having attended a party where “very young girls” were being used for sex, the reaction would have been swift and ruthless. It would not have taken the man in question more than a year to suffer any consequences, as it did for Milo.

Takei’s own tacit approval of child sex, meanwhile, has been on record for more than a decade, and he has suffered no professional or personal fallout for it.

Author: Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.

 

 

And, good news:

Anonymous hackers take out darkweb child porn sites – and leak 381,000 email addresses

That is a lot of addresses! Just horrible.

“Troy Hunt of HaveIBeenPwned says that 21% of the addresses used match information from previous leaks – suggesting they are people’s ‘real’ email addresses, rather than ‘burner’ addresses used to conceal people’s identity.”

And which leads us the very same question this commenter asked:

Rich Rochy Rochester

Shame the FBI/CIA don’t bother doing the same. Good on them.

Indeed, why is it that an anonymous hacker had to do this? Where was the police? Although I know there are some police units that do this kind of work, nothing on this magnitude, insofar as what I have seen reported. And why don’t the military take out child porn sites? And as another commenter, Rico Bobby, replied:

Because it would implicate their bosses.. and themselves

And not only that, their main job is committing mass murder of innocent poor people of color abroad.

In any case, great job by these hackers and thank you, from me.

 

‘I cried all the way back’: sexual harassment on public transport

How does it feel to be subject to unwanted sexual attention on your morning commute? Or on your way to school? We asked readers to tell us their stories of sexual harassment on public transport

 

I thought this article in the British newspaper “The Guardian” was very well written. Really, it is a model for such approaching such topics. The article was helping a campaign against sexual harassment:

Transport for London launched a hard-hitting campaign against sexual assault and harassment on its services. Accompanied by a harrowing video of a woman experiencing sexual assault on the Tube, the campaign urged anyone who experienced unwanted sexual behaviour to report it to the police. A year on since its launch, with the video boasting more than 4m views, 36% more people have reported such incidents on the London underground.

More excerpts below:

We asked our readers to tell us about their experiences. Some told us about being followed off trains. Others told us about men trying to sneak a feel of their breasts between shopping bags. Then there were those who witnessed public masturbation, or were just teenagers when they were first subject to unwanted sexual attention.

====

Being glad to have found a seat amidst the full carriage after a stressful day at work, I took off my coat and acknowledged the people sitting around me with a smile. I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.

I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.

Although I was wearing a buttoned up shirt, showing no cleavage whatsoever, I loosely wrapped my scarf around my neck, also covering my chest. I kept reading, and he kept staring. At the next stop a lot of people got out and even more came in. In between he quickly came over and took the newly empty seat opposite of me.

Only inches away he started grinning at me. I felt very uncomfortable, my eyes glued to the page. One stop before mine I had to get my coat on again and got up to make my way through the packed carriage.

Waiting for the train door to open I saw in the corner of my eye the man was still sitting down. I jumped out of the train and walked quickly upstairs, almost running. I still had a bad feeling, so instead of walking the rest of the way home, as I usually did, I turned the corner and went downstairs to another line to catch a different train for one more stop.

On reaching the platform, the man suddenly turned up next to me, walking along with the same, fast pace.

“Hey, wait!” he shouted at me in English. I realised ignoring him would no longer work, so I took out one of my earphones. Without stopping I said to him: “You make me feel uncomfortable. I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”

“Hey, you speak English? It’s not a bad thing. We can talk.” he said with a dirty grin.

“Sorry, but I do not want to talk to you. Please leave me alone!” I replied slowing down next to two ladies in their 50s chatting. He was stood in front of me.

“You take this train, too? What direction? We can meet some time.”. He touched my arm. I answered: “No, I do not want to meet or talk to you. Leave me alone now!”

The train came rattling in. With my heart pumping I firmly walked around the intrusive man, followed the two ladies into the carriage and sat down with them next to the window.

When the train left the station I couldn’t tell if the man was still on the platform. For a while I was afraid he might be in a different carriage. When I got out at the next stop, I stood next to a group of young punks and only then I was brave enough to wait and see if the man was still following me. He wasn’t – I was alone again. Shaky and sweaty I walked home.

The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”

I never reported it nor told anyone else about it. They made me feel like it was my fault and that I should be ashamed.

It was not my fault and I no longer feel ashamed.

Kira, Hamburg

=====end of excerpt=======

Good for you, Kira. Here’s the first problem – girls like Kira are brought to be polite and civilized – but they live in a violent world. You notice that Kira’s response is mostly very polite – when confronted with a harassing, potentially violent, man. Given his behavior, one can only guess at how deeply the turd goes in his head regarding sexuality. I’m sure his reading of her smile was she must be fishing for a sexual encounter with a stranger, or maybe he thought she was a prostitute. Or maybe he thought that there wasn’t anything meant by her smile, but he thought he might be able to exploit her sexually or to bully her someway into talking to him. In any case, he decided to target her.

Obviously, through no fault of her own, Kira has lived in a very sheltered world. We can see this by her reaction here:

“I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”

What?! Was this her head going into denial or did she really think an older man who is harassing and following her with a dirty grin is a “nice person who means well”? Did she think this because she had never had an experience of a threat or harassment from someone? And the fact that she is so polite!

I’m glad, albeit she was overly polite, that she repeatedly told the guy to leave her alone.

Then, not surprisingly, she tells of her co-workers’ reaction, blaming her.

“The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”

Well, it’s true, she shouldn’t have – because she was in a public place full of strangers. However, it was not her fault that she did. Had she been living in a decent society, she could have smiled without worries. But when you live in a world where people let others live “as they want”, that’s what happens. All the predators, harassers, LGBTs, and perverts live “as they want”, doing whatever they want, as long as they get away with it.

What consequences will this guy ever face over what he did? None. Especially now that such a long time has passed and whatever security video there might be of the incident has long been erased. And even if there was a video, and she denounced the man to authorities, what would they do? And if she went on national TV with her story, what retaliation could she expect later in life?

The silver lining in this case is that the newspaper offered a space and an opportunity for people like Kira to tell and therefore re-examine their harassment experiences. Now she has broken her silence and, most importantly, she was able to realize that it was not her fault. She herlself did nothing bad, starting with her innocent smile. But it’s just not something you can do.

Now, as a post-examination exercise, let’s imagine for a second that this man is bisexual and goes after young men and women. He’s a member therefore of the LGBT community who cries over and over again about how mistreated and discriminated they are in society. Really, oppressed people, are they? Let’s suppose he is heterosexual, but his perversion extends from having a dirty mind about women to also endorsing homosexuality. So he is a gay-friendly sexual harasser, potentially a rapist. A gay-friendly rapist! Were he to present himself as a candidate for a job, and mention he was gay-friendly and compete for the job against a person who was against normalizing homosexuality, most liberals would hands down give him the job. See, “equality” for sexuality turds is like that!

 

 

 

Liberals are harmless and tolerant, right? People who are in favor of porn just want to live and let live, right?

Interesting article from guy who became psychologically and physically ill from porn addiction on the NYT. The most interesting part for me was reading about the death threats he received once he started a website to campaign against porn.

Need I mention that the overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of porn think homosexuality is normal? What trash of human beings.

Internet Porn Nearly Ruined His Life. Now He Wants to Help.

 

Look at this case (Gay parents fight for custody with surrogate in Thailand – The Telegraph UK). Not only at the case, but also how it’s framed by Western media.

It’s about two grotesque homosexual pigs who wanted to use a Thai woman as a mule for carrying a baby that they were then going to take away from the mother at the end – that is, surrogacy:

“The gay couple went to court today in a high-profile custody battle in Thailand with a surrogate mother who is trying to keep the child after discovering their sexual orientation.

Gordan Lake, an American and Manuel Valero, his Spanish husband – both 41 – have been unable to leave the country with Carmen, the baby girl, for over a year because the surrogate has refused to sign the documents that allow the infant to obtain a passport.”

She claims she was never told the baby was to be given to two homosexual pigs. Quite possible if you ask me. What’s my position on surrogacy? There may be some very unusual case of surrogacy where I may even consider it perhaps acceptable. But anything involving homosexual pigs is not it.

So, without more info, here’s my guess. Since all of this surrogacy business is about money, I can well imagine the “agency” lied to the Thai woman (or never told her, which amounts to the same) about who the baby was for.

Then that mother, who does not have the mind of a pig, discovers to her horror that her beautiful baby girl is to be given to two deformed and perverted men, who hate having a healthy relationship with a woman, and who would deprive the girl of her real mother and of a step-mother as well.

The Telegraph then reports that the  Thai mother gave birth, but now thinking of the well-being and the human rights of the baby, refused to sign off the baby.

So the homosexual pigs stole the baby from the surrogate mother and went into “hiding” – whatever that means. An underground Thai network of baby smugglers?

The couple has been living in hiding with Carmen and Alvaro, their two-year-old surrogate child for 14 months fearing the baby will be taken from them.

They criminally stole the baby from its real mother. Who did not want to part with the baby. But the case is even more complicated, because this Thai woman just carried the baby, since the egg for the baby came from an anonymous woman!

All because these turds of homosexuals refuse to go deal with their profoundly deformed psychologies and treat their sexuality problems.

But there’s more:

The case is complicated by the fact that Thai law does not recognise same-sex marriages and also by a new law that bans commercial surrogacy, which took effect after baby Carmen’s birth.

Thailand had been a popular destination for foreign couples seeking surrogacy services, partly because of loose regulations and low costs compared with some other countries.

In other words, as other people have remarked, the rich West has now gone beyond treating third world people like dogs merely for cheap labor, they must now colonize the wombs of these unfortunate women, and make them into mules for carrying the babies that they are too perverted to conceive through a healthy man-woman relationship.

Lastly, look at the framing by the wealthy Western media – who’s portrayed as the victim? The two privileged homosexual pigs.

The paper reports Gordan Lake alleges they never lied to the surrogate mother. Lake said:

…he and his husband were always the “intended parents”.

“We’re the people that wanted to have a child,” he said. “We just want to go home and we just want to be a family. A normal boring family.”

Well, we have news for the homosexual pig. A normal, boring family doesn’t use poor women in Thailand as mules to carry their fabricated babies. A normal, boring family doesn’t rip off a baby girl from the woman who carried her. It doesn’t engage in criminal activity in a third world country to steal babies.

And look at the argument they are presenting:

The couple’s lawyer, Rachapol Sirikulchit, said he was confident they will be awarded custody and take the baby with them to Spain, where they live.

“Baby Carmen has the right to be with her biological father, who supports her financially and has cared for her since she was born,” Mr Sirikulchit said. “The priority is to consider the benefit for children and that they have the right to live with their biological parent.”

In other words, money. Come buy children from the wombs of poor women and take them away to do whatever your perverted mind decides.

I hope the Thai government will not be bought by these two gay turds. Alas, as we all know, money does speak loudly in a poor country. And women and children have no fundamental human rights if there’s a gay or lesbian pig wailing about something they want. In Western liberalism, is there a right for a baby girl to have a mother? Never if homosexual pigs are involved. All that matters is that she be given things (money), which the two homosexual pigs have.

A new chapter of how nasty neo-colonization is: now at the level of a poor woman’s womb.

 

I went to see Spotlight.(Spoilers ahead).

I liked the pace and the rhythm and the way they treated the subject without being lurid. One of the strongest aspects of the film is that it succeeds in putting a simultaneous spotlight on the pain of the victims and on the collective negligence and cover-up by the Church, the police, the lawyers, society – and, most importantly, the press.

Part of the conscience crisis that members of the Spotlight team face is the fact that the team members begin to see and acknowledge they never investigated, printed, or followed up on several denunciations, clips, stories, and reports during a long time, including from members of their very own “star” investigative team that finally broke the story – this was very well done. They had also been part of the cover-up, even if their cover-up had been due to their disinterest and neglect, and due to not being as aware – unlike the Church, who had been outright criminal. As one critic put it, the film doesn’t lionize and idealize its heroes, showing how the media was often in cahoots with the monstrous Catholic Church.

But… since the movie was written by liberals – who else? – it was replete with propaganda about homosexuality. The most god-awful lie is that these priests just abused male victims “because that’s who was available”. These people are doing a film about the most infamous male sexual abuse scandal in modern times and they want to insist that a 15-year-old male adolescent was sexually abused by a homosexual priest because the priest couldn’t get his hands on a young female adolescent?

What a disgrace. They also never mentioned how many homosexuals there were and are far up in the Catholic Church who aided and abetted the pedophilia and ephebophilia crimes because they were threatened with being outed by the homosexual priests and bishops doing abuse. In the movie, it was all explained away as “these priests are emotionally stunted, that’s why they are pedophiles”. No mention of how many of them are perverted homosexuals and that’s why they abuse.

And Father Shanley, described as “a hippie”, not as the homosexual activist that he was! The movie writers denounce one scandal while continuing to engage in the cover-up of another – the homosexual abuse of minors!! Just as the Catholic Church tries to cover up any truth about its priests, liberals try to cover up any truth about how abusive its homosexuals are.

Pathetic.

As we can see, any information that presents the truth about how perverted homosexuals involved in the scandal are and were was purposely scrapped.

On the other hand, it’s very good that the movie won the main Oscar, since this gives it visibility, and that means it gives worldwide visibility to the subject. The importance of this film is that it centers its attention on the societal cover-up, while also touching upon the gravity of the damage done to the victims.

And the ending with the bit about the fact that Cardinal Law is now living in high style in the Vatican was well done. Like Nazis who escaped to Argentina after the war and lived a comfortable life until their deaths.

It’s hard to be shocked anymore, given the sleaze that oozes out of every pore of both the Republican and Democrat parties, but here I am, shocked.

It’s due to this article:

The Jeffrey Epstein Affair Imperils Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Prospects

The case of the high-flying (alleged) pedophile reveals a broken American political process

You can go to the wikipedia page on Epstein to read  a much more detailed account of all his criminal pedophile activities, including having settled up to now no less than 17 accusations, which are in addition to the time he served in jail for soliciting prostitution from a child.

Silverstein continues by saying how Bill Clinton’s entanglement in this sordid affair could affect the upcoming elections:

What all this means is that Hillary Clinton’s husband has already been implicated in the Epstein scandal and that his dubious private behavior, which has already once distracted the entire nation from more important business, could do so again if Ms. Clinton does indeed run for president.

But, wait, would that derail him from voting for Hillary Clinton? Probably not, he says:

What’s worse, at least from my personal standpoint, is that if Ms. Clinton were to become the Democratic nominee I still might vote for her because the likely Republican candidates have retrograde and vile public views about race, class, gender and gay rights, and those are important to me, and especially because the two main parties are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to fundamental economic policy. Because both are bought and paid for by Wall Street and financiers like Jeffrey Epstein, as well as other powerful interests who overwhelmingly fund our political campaigns.

And, hear this, neither would a pedophile scandal that is being largely ignored by the left-wing media along with  Bill Clinton’s  involvement in it, affect his college-age daughter’s choice to vote for Hillary. Silverstein says he probably will not vote for Hillary, but would if his daughter asked him to. Just why would the little garbage he has for a daughter vote for Hillary?

she [his daughter] is appalled and outraged by the GOP’s stone age social politics and because she would like to see a woman become president. And that’s a good enough reason for me. Maybe.

Josh Udvare ·

I am going to vote for somebody who enables a rapist. And it’s the REPUBLICANS who have the “vile” views on “gender”. The Left’s ability to brainwash themselves never ceases to amaze me. How closed minded do you have to be. Like I tell my firends, the main reason I became a Conservative is because I am open minded, compassionate, justice seeking, person.
_____________________
_____________________

Dana Blasi ·

I don’t think Democrat voters care if Hillary’s husband is a pedophille. Do they?
_____________________

Jo Gregg

Having lived in two inner cities and seen the violence, crime, drugs, terrible schools, all of it under the control of Democrats for as long as any of us can remember, and reading Mr. Silverstein’s description of Republicans “retrograde and vile public views about race, ….” etc. etc., may I suggest that Mr. Silverstein needs to look to the Democrats for some serious explaining about what it is they have been doing with America’s welfare state for the last 50 years and why they have been doing it. Thousands of young Blacks dying violently each year seems excessively tragic and vile to me. And there is no one to blame but the Democrats. They have controlled those cities, even in red states or counties since welfare began.
__________________
[Silverstein also tried to defend Bill Clinton saying his impeachment was completely unreasonable and unfair, but I  excluded that part from the main quotes not to make them too long. Other good comments regarding the dishonest attempt to defend Bill:]

Max Bouknecht ·

“It’s also true, in my view, that Ken Starr, who sought to impeach Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, is a twisted zealot and that it’s probably a bad idea to impeach a president for sexual misconduct, because that has nothing to do with his or her ability to govern effectively,….”

Mr Silverstein’s credibility takes a serious hit with the above statement. The chief law enforcement officer of the land lied, under oath, in an attempt to deny another American citizen her right to due process under the law. He carried on a major coverup, also regularly lying to the American people for over 8 long months, attacking Lewinski’s character, only giving up when the irrefutable evidence of the semen stained dress became public. Mr. Silverstein’s “version” is the persistent urban myth perpetuated by the Democratic Party and Clinton sycophants.

_________________
_________________

Don Muller ·

“It is far easier to fool the American people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Three young Hungarian men have helped dismantle a U.S. gay prostitution ring that enslaved them, marking a victory for local prosecutors but highlighting the difficulty in reaching and helping male trafficking victims, campaigners said.

The men’s accounts of being raped, locked up in windowless rooms, and their lives threatened led to the conviction this month of Andras Janos Vass, 26, for helping to operate a male prostitution ring of gay Hungarians in New York City and Miami.

Sentenced to 11 years in prison, Vass, a Hungarian national, was the first person convicted in Florida for trafficking gay men under the state’s tougher human trafficking law that took effect in 2012, authorities said.

=========================

[Is the Westboro Church trafficking people? No. But scum of liberals who think homosexuality and pornography are normal, are.

Who are the extremists? Which group is doing grotesque sexual violence in the world? It’s the LGBT camp, the people who think homosexuality is normal.

Once again, time to recall my old post:

Who does more violence in society and is the most extremist: liberals (including LGBTs) or the Westboro folks?]

=========================

Two Hungarian victims were picked up by Vass through GayRomeo.com”

“The maximum penalty for Vass’ crimes could have been up to 155 years in prison, but defence lawyer Adam Goodman said that before taking his role in the ring, he was a victim himself at the hand of the other man and was forced to marry one.”

[Progress! They got “married”. And look at how deformed the minds of the homosexual victims were:]

‘”This case is about people who were fine with engaging in sex for money,” Jackson says. (Crystal Jackson is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York who specializes in gender and sexuality, sex work, social justice, and inequality.)  “Popular culture has us think of trafficking as people who are kidnapped, torn from their homes. Trafficking is complex, and in this case, what we call ‘trafficking’ occurred at the point of labor, not movement across borders. These are important to note.” The men came to the US willingly, and they were willing to work as escorts, but they were forced into sex slavery once they reached their destination.’

[In other words, the victims here are men with a completely deformed, destructive, and perverted idea of sex, number one, because they think homosexuality is normal, and, number two, because they believe prostitution is valid.]

I don’t think this story is getting as much attention as it could because it’s about gay men.” Quote by Crystal Jackson.

[No surprise there. The narrative will always be more important than the violent reality of homosexuals, bisexuals, and liberals. Therefore media reports and stories must only portray a narrative that masks the ugly reality of LGBT people, all the violence they do in the world, how corrupt and vicious they are, how perverted their minds are, how much they destroy society, and only stories where some social conservative or religious individual does violence to homosexuals must be told, usually in the most hysterical way possible.

The other thing that I found a bit curious, perhaps because I just read a few articles on this case and don’t have much information on it, is that it appears that only the ring leaders are going to be prosecuted. But weren’t there many more johns involved? Or is it because the “victims” are in favor of prostitution that they would never accuse any of the johns, even if they knew their identities? And the authorities? You know, all that information lying around at the NSA about phone calls, SMSs, emails, Internet messages? Alas, we sure live in a corrupt world…]

Link to official documents (which I haven’t read) plus more details on the case. Some of the sites they used: GayRomeo.com, RentBoy.com, and PlanetRomeo.com. Look at the huge, top of the page, ad pictures here: http://www.planetromeo.com/en/about/

In the beach sea one (https://www.planetromeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/beach-boys-smaller-21.jpg), the homo pig has a cross around his neck. And in this photo: https://www.planetromeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/8042677070_67af5cf6b9_o.jpg – what I thought was: I’m sure there’s more syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV per square feet there than in any other place!

New film – that I have not watched – on the horrors of war in Africa. What is anyone in the West doing to save these people from the horrors of war? Basically nothing. When war breaks out, Westerners leave the locals to experience hell. And that after several Westerner governments have furnished billions in arms for the mass killings along with all the secret “services” for the de-stabilization required for implanting the puppet regimes to rob African people of their resources.

Is this a world that calls itself sane? Civilized? We are awash in evil.

Here is a review of “Beasts of No Nation” – excerpt from http://sfbayview.com/2015/11/beasts-of-no-nation/

“Beasts of No Nation” is a well financed Netflix film that crudely exposes the face of the wars in Africa and the false poverty that has been created by U.S. and other Western imperialist governments spearheading a corporate plan to rob the richest continent on earth of its natural resources.

Idris Elba plays the leader of an African militia that takes in a boy played by Abraham Attah and teaches him to be a soldier in the Netflix film, “Beasts of No Nation.” – Photo: Netflix

It is the tale of a little boy in an unnamed African country. The boy, played by Abraham Attah, is orphaned when he is left with his father in the war zone after his mother and young siblings flee. The boy’s father becomes a casualty of the war.

A short while after he was orphaned, a rebel guerrilla army led by the character played by Idris Elba stumbles upon him in the bush. The unromanticized brutality of war is captured in the many battles fought by the very brave but misled child and youth soldiers. The film deals boldly with the psychological aspects of brainwashing and propaganda in war.

“Beasts of No Nation” is based on a novel by Nigerian author Uzodinma Iweala. I did not read the book so I cannot compare the two.

I don’t know whether to be more upset at Idris Elba, who accepted the role of a homosexual pedophile raping his own soldiers for imperialism or myself for thinking that Idris Elba might use the platform to say something about the world order that has crushed over 6 million people in the Congo in ordeals like the one depicted in the film so that Apple, Microsoft, Dell and the rest of the computer industry can steal coltan and other minerals at the cheapest price possible utilizing proxy armies and governments from nations like Uganda, Rwanda and rebel forces in the Congo to do it.

==============================

This is the only review I saw that mentioned this: “homosexual pedophile raping his own soldiers”. Finally someone breaking the silence regarding homosexual pedophilia? I suppose we will have to wait for more reviews for the answer.

And after reading this unpalatable review of the novel at the “LA review of books”, this is the comment I left:

Nothing more disgusting than a vile American sitting comfortably in his armchair writing in the most detached fashion about the “child soldier genre” while his country has fueled and armed many of these wars and created the hell that these people have had to go through. The most the author can think of saying about it all is that the “child soldier genre is now passé”.

Sick.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: