Hollywood Chickenhawk Child Recruitment Strategy Unmasked
(This article in PDF: Chickenhawk Child Recruitment Strategy Unmasked)
This is the third in a series of articles on the unfolding pederasty scandal in Hollywood. The first explained how pederasty (man/boy sex) is central to “gay” male culture. The second examined how a conspiracy of political leftists in media, academia and government allowed the truth to remain suppressed for so long. This article will expose how these same conspirators are even now orchestrating a new cover-up. It will also explain how “gay” recruitment of children through “grooming”” is not only common in the “gay” community, but has been institutionalized in western society so that literally every child is continually being “groomed” as a potential sex partner for adult predators.
Let’s begin by addressing the damage control strategy being deployed by the left as they seek to reestablish the cover-up of the Hollywood pederast network. It has just two parts and is very simple.
First (as always with the left), it centers on a common narrative designed to control public perception through carefully chosen terminology and symbolism. In this case, the key term to note is “pedophilia,” because it is well settled in public perception that pedophilia is a sickness unrelated to homosexuality in which the gender of child victims is largely incidental. In contrast, the phenomenon being exposed in the Hollywood Chickehhawk scandal is actually pederasty, which is highly gender specific and has always been intimately associated with “gay”” male culture. (This should be Talking Point #1 for every conservative pundit!)
The larger narrative is “there’s always a few rotten apples in every barrel and it’s good these few have been exposed but they certainly aren’t representative of any larger hidden network or connected in any way to the LGBT community (which is in fact as much a victim of these perverts as those who were abused).”
Second, because of his celebrity and the timing of his exposure, Kevin Spacey will most likely remain the symbolic scapegoat of the entire Chickenhawk scandal. This again is classic leftist diversion (like the Clintons’ Lewinsky scandal deflected attention from their far more consequential criminality and treason that continued unchallenged and unabated). By keeping the main spotlight on the chosen focal point, and signaling to the entire leftist block that Spacey is the chosen symbol on which to pour all their scorn and derision, the left can both steer public attention regarding the scandal generally, while “proving” how much they despise “pedophilia” by the excessiveness of their hyperbole. They can also provide limited cover for other perpetrators by keeping the audience fixed on the “center ring” of the media circus.
In time, when the public bloodlust has been sated, the cover will be closed and the Chickenhawks network will be back in business, with new precautions in place to prevent a reoccurrence.
However, time favors the Chickenhawks because of the institutional “grooming” taking place in our society. To get a mental glimpse into this phenomenon, consider for just one moment how many of Kevin Spacey’s “victims” don’t actually think of themselves as victims. Spacey is 56 years old and apparently has been very sexually active for his entire adult life – there must be hundreds, perhaps thousands of underage boys on his list of successful conquests. Who are these boys and why were they willing to be seduced? They are simply products of America’s public schools and popular culture who have been groomed since infancy to view homosexuality as good and normal, and challenged to experiment with it themselves.
And who has been most aggressive in pushing this perspective of “sexual freedom” in movies, music, literature, sports, schools, and every other sphere of influence over children? Who exactly are the “style-setters,” the ““envelope-pushers,” the “taboo-challengers” that continuously feed and encourage the rebellious inclinations of children and teens? Who most “benefits” from and has driven the so-called sexual revolution from the very start? It is the same conspiracy of Hollywood elites, Democrat strategists and LGBT activists that have provided cover for the Chickenhawks for decades.
To understand just how serious a threat this is to ALL our children it helps to step outside the ““sexual orientation” theory of homosexuality that was invented by these same people to sell the narrative that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. For just one moment consider whether instead, all human beings are susceptible to adopting any form of sexual identity simply because it’s all just behavioral choices – and that these choices, when made in youth, can get locked in place. Once you realize that, the “sexual freedom” agenda, and normalization of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, is readily recognized as a giant “grooming” strategy to prepare all children for recruitment. Let us all pray that the Hollywood Chickenhawk scandal gets fully exposed.
The following is quoted from the article “Nothing to Celebrate in LGBT History” on this blog:
* According to the pre-eminent scholarly journal of the LGBT community, the Journal of Homosexuality, and one of its most respect contributors, Gert Heckma PhD, of the Gay Studies Department of the University of Amsterdam, the Marquis de Sade was a key pioneer of the modern LGBT movement. In his 1989 article, titled “Sodomites, Platonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers: The Backgrounds of the Modern Homosexual” (Vol. 16, No 1. 1989) Heckma writes:
“The most important exception to the philosophes’ ambivalent politics of the body was D.A.F. Marquis de Sade, who based his political philosophy precisely on sodomy…Sade used sodomy as a particularly good example of what seemed to be unnatural, unreasonable and purposeless, but which could in no way be proven to be against nature or reason. Sade’s Philosophy in the Boudoir (1795) was a clear apology for the decriminalization of pederasty [man/boy sex] and sodomy…Sade emphasized that there were no rational arguments against any form of social behavior, be it prostitution, lust murder, or sodomy, and he strongly opposed the suggestion that theft, prostitution, sodomy or lust murder were against nature….
“In 1772, Sade was sentenced to death for sodomizing his manservant and for poisoning prostitutes…Nothing is known about his homosexual proclivities except for the sodomy of his manservant and his writings. But his most scrupulous biographer, Gilbert Lely, has asserted that he was a homosexual with no remorse….It was against…family politics…and the church and its institutions that Sade rebelled — albeit without much success — thus beginning a political struggle for the rights of pederasts.”