13 thoughts on “Westminster Child Abuse: High Level Child Abuse Ring Exposed.”

1. Senior MP accused of child sex abuse: Two MPs report same serving Labour politician to police over sex attacks and corruption claims

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166708/Senior-MP-accused-child-sex-abuse-Two-MPs-report-serving-Labour-politician-police-sex-attacks-corruption-claims.html#ixzz3gNM6th9K

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Added link to story thanks butlin cat.

     LikeLike

     Reply

   • HOW PEDOPHILIA CAME TO HOLLYWOOD
     BY BILLY WILDER
     Screenwriter and director, Billy Wilder, has had an enormous impact on the public, as substantiated by his numerous Oscars and other film awards. Responsible for famous films like Hold Back the Dawn, Five Graves to Cairo, Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, Sabrina and The Apartment, Wilder’s cinema successes were granted him as he was just another pawn who was utilized with satanic acumen to help abolish society’s established code of ethics. His own authorized biographer who worked closely with him, Maurice Zolotow, wrote:
     “Of course, I did not know what I was getting into when I had started this. It became, as all such journeys have become, a journey to find out the secret springs of this most devious and perverse of Hollywood’s personalities.”
     Wilder loved to transport the viewer into the depravity of his own heart and did this by tricking the censors who sought to enforce the old Hollywood Production Code of Hollywood’s “Golden Age.” Wilder recalls, “We had to operate cunningly to outwit the censors and this made us write more subtly.” What subtleties did he scatter throughout his films? Perversion. In his movie, The Major and the Minor, Wilder admits that the motif was child sexuality, stating:
     “Ray Milland falls in love with Ginger as a twelve year old child. We had here the first American movie about pedophilia. The Major is sexually aroused by her. He can’t help himself. I was worried that audiences would be shocked by this story, but it seems that they were not.”
     This goes to show that if a story is entertaining and “cute,” it can bypass the normal reaction to such filth and translate into apathetic disregard on the slippery slope of corruption. Where did this movie minister of perversion receive his material? Wilder was given his creative material by another supernatural force. In addition to stating that he is “demonically possessed and slightly crazed,” Zolotow reports of Wilder:
     “He could not stop his creative machinery from functioning. He was enslaved by his art…One sometimes felt as if one were moved by powerful invisible forces. I forgot to tell you that Wilder never starts a new screenplay without typing two words on the first page: Cum Deo (‘With God’). He has a pantheistic feeling about the universe.”
     Demon possession leads many from the truths of God to the pantheistic lies of the New Age movement because Satan uses those who will serve him most faithfully in preparing humanity to embrace him as the god of this world. Wilder’s responses upon completion of his show make it readily apparent which god he aligned himself with. Scientologist screenwriter of the Sound of Music, Ernest Lehman, recalls:
     “He looked at the heavens and screeched F— you!” It was…a victory cry, as if he were calling out to God and saying, ‘I completed this picture despite everything you did to make me surrender.'”
     Dr. Lycurgus Starkey rightly announced on the NBC network: “His movies have overturned all the sexual mores, glorified promiscuity, glamorized prostitution and elevated adultery to a virtue.” Dr. Starkey was prophetically right in predicting the social effect and outcome of Wilder’s films that we currently face in our day. The atheist author of communism, Karl Marx, explains the reasons why this is so:
     “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.”
     The gross immorality in Hollywood that makes its way on the screen and thus influences the masses reflects the lives of those who operate within it. An intimate friend of the late Steve McQueen related:
     “He’d kill for a part in a movie…he’d suck anyone’s [expletive]…he’d get f—– or f— anyone who’d get him a part in a show…then he’d wish-he’d pray- that person would have a heart attack or a stroke and die, and then there would be no way for anyone to know how McQueen had got the part.”
     This disgusting ambition is what keeps the infamous casting couch warm and desirous hopeful actors willing. Hollywood insider, Phyllis Diller, clarifies this fact:
     “The casting couch is the name of the game in Hollywood. I know there are stars, especially women, who have made a career from sexual favors.”
     Would you invite a person whom you knew to be ethically bankrupt and an absolute moral degenerate into your home to influentially instruct your wife, your husband, and your children or loved ones? These are the very ones that America invites into their home every night via the television to submissively share their lives with.
     Biblically condemned spiritual conundrums regularly occur in Hollywood. Faye Dunaway said that the ghost of Joan Crawford is haunting her. Actress Jean Seberg believed that her “devils” kept her from ever being free. She stated:
     “The devils will stop that sort of stuff in a second. They ride right here. (Touching her collar bone with her fingers) Sitting here and here. There’s one on each side…these are both unfriendly influences. They tell me to run my car into other cars, or drive off a cliff.”
     A friend later reflected on her life and pin pointed the cause as the “acting classes at Columbia Studios…[which] had the power to influence Jean’s devils.” Like countless others in the Hollywood movie star system, this lead to psychiatric hospitals and suicide. Actor Sal Mineo was in regular contact with psychics and spoke of the “vibrations” of James Dean’s spirit that haunted him, stating, “I’ve got to get him off my back because I don’t want to join him down there.” Mineo was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Is fame worth the extorted fees that Satan demands of his servants of the silver screen?
     As Alan Alda declared:
     “There’s plenty of money to be had…But you also lose your soul.”

     LikeLike

     Reply

   • “THE ORTHODOX JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD”!

     The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.

     The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:

     “THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”

     SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”

     This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:

     SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”

     (footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”

     SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

     KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
     (footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

     KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”(Dildo)
     (footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”(Dildo)

     ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.

     SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”

     Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the “Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up! The Talmud states: “When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.”

     Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.”
     Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, there fore, be suspected.”

     LikeLike

     Reply

2. Thanks James, I’m reminded that, although I play little video/audio these days, Deborah Mahmoudieh has a reassuring manner and that really lovely “droney voice” (hear her comment on ‘Set The Captives Free’). Unusually listen-able and perceptive.

   It’s unlike you to pump out links-only but I take it as timely splurge of protest with encouragement in the battle that there’s voices rising…
   Rise and shine
   Mark

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Thanks Mark,I agree with you about Deborah. There are a group of heroic small Youtube channels that seemed worth mentioning. Thanks.

     LikeLike

     Reply

     • THREE YEAR OLD BRIDES

       “SEX AFTER EIGHT IS TOO LATE”?

       Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia — permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” (1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah”, or binding Jewish law. (2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
       References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

       THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
       The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
       Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3)
       In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)
       Endnotes:
       1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
       2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
       3 Sanhedrin 76a.
       4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.

       OUT OF BABYLON
       It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar (‘sin’) was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah – Any questions?]
       As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl.
       But with expulsion of the Jews [‘Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim’] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
       Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

       SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
       What exactly did these sages say?
       The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (5) Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6)
       A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
       Endnotes:

       5 Sanhedrin 69b.
       6 Sanhedrin 55a.
       7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
       8 Sanhedrin 55b.

       SEX AT THREE YEARS & ONE DAY
       In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the ‘precursors’ of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]
       R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)
       “A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation …” (Yeb. 57b)
       A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)
       It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)
       [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] “… fit for cohabitation … But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)
       The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
       The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
       The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”

       NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS

       The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)
       The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)
       In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
       Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.

       PEDOPHILIA WIDESPREAD
       Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism . This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:
       “There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”
       The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)
       These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
       In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13) This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
       The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
       Endnotes:
       9 Sanhedrin 55a.
       10 Kethuboth 11a.
       11 Kethuboth 11b.
       12 Yebamoth 60b.
       13 Sanhedrin 76b.

       A FASCINATION WITH SEX
       Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
       The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

       LikeLike

     • Thanks Lucky Larry, for these very interesting comments.

       LikeLike

   • James, I got it, ‘Spies, Lords & Predators’ is important, even causing the ‘mostly a hoax-ers’ to qualify their convictions. We need these more accessible presentation’s and conversation, that faces the rot and draws the multitude – at this point – of bystanders, to get the rage and talk or type out.
     Mark

     LikeLike

     Reply

     • Great comment Mark, I think it is important.

       LikeLike

3. 60 MINUTES: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: SPIES, LORDS AND PREDATORS (FULL EPISODE) HD

   Published on 19 Jul 2015

   SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Spies, Lords & Predators
   It’s shaping up to be the biggest political scandal in Britain’s history. There is new evidence that some of the country’s most respected men were in fact depraved paedophiles. Leaders that were preying on children as young as eight and nine. Many of the kids were trafficked from state-run homes and other institutions to be abused by MPs, Lords, and spies. They were protected from on high by a secret code, and have never been held to account for their horrific crimes. 60 Minutes investigates the scandal and the cover up, speaks to the victims and the witnesses, and confronts a member of the notorious paedophile information exchange. Reporter Ross Coulthart also reveals how children were killed in order to protect this network of predators – and how the driver to the Australian High Commissioner could hold the key to blowing this case wide open.

   Reporter: Ross Coulthart

   Producer: Stephen Rice

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. Reblogged this on We Who Oppose Deception.

   LikeLike

   Reply

5. Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

   LikeLike

   Reply