It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hollywoods Conspiracy against girls

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:09 PM

“Jewish Porn,” World Union of Jewish Students.
“After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that provide. That is to say that 1000s of people are searching for Jewish porn.

“Porn Upsets Palestinians,” The Advertiser, March 31, 2002.
“Porn movies and programs in Hebrew are being broadcast by Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television stations of Ramallah, irate residents of the besieged West Bank town have told AFP. The offices of three local television and radio stations were occupied by soldiers yesterday morning, a few hours after tanks and hundreds of troops stormed the town in Israel’s biggest offensive against the Palestinian Authority and its leader Yasser Arafat.

The soldiers started broadcasting the porn clips — considered extremely offensive by most Muslims — intermittently this afternoon from the Al-Watan, Ammwaj, and Al-Sharaq channels, the residents said. ‘

The pornographic movies started on Al-Watan television at around 3:30 pm,’ one 34-year-old Palestinian mother named Reema told AFP. ‘I have six children at home, they have nowhere to go with what is going on here and can’t even watch TV,’ she said angrily. ‘It’s not healthy really. I think the Israelis want to mess with our young men’s heads,’ she said.

The following information has been around for years

“The Law of Return [from Israel: Whose Country Is It Anyway?" by well-known Jewish lesbian feminist Andrea Dworkin, 1990. [posted here at]

“You have to see it to believe it and even seeing it might not help. I’ve been sent it over the years by feminists in Israel–I had seen it–I didn’t really believe it.

Unlike in the United States, pornography is not an industry. You find it in mainstream magazines and advertising. It is mostly about the Holocaust.

In it, Jewish women are sexualized as Holocaust victims for Jewish men to masturbate over.

Well, would you believe it, even if you saw it? Israeli women call it ‘Holocaust pornography.’

The themes are fire, gas, trains, emaciation, death … . Monitin is a left-liberal slick monthly for the intelligentsia and upper class. It has high productions and aesthetic values. Israel’s most distinguished writers and intellectuals publish in it.

Judith Antonelli in The Jewish Advocate reported that Monitin ‘contains the most sexually violent images. Photos abound of women sprawled out upside-down as if they have just been attacked.’

Or, in a magazine for women that is not unlike Ladies’ Home Journal, there is a photograph of a woman tied to a chair with heavy rope. Her shirt is torn off her shoulders and upper chest but her arms are tied up against her so that only the fleshy part of the upper breasts is exposed. She is wearing pants–they are wet. A man, fully dressed, standing next to her, is throwing beer in her face.

In the United States, such photographs of women are found in bondage magazines.

For purists, there is an Israeli pornography magazine. The issue I saw had a front-page headline that read: ORGY AT YAD VASHEM. Yad Vashem is the memorial in Jerusalem to the victims of the Holocaust. Under the headline, there was a photograph of a man sexually entangled with several women. What does this mean–other than that if you are a Jewish woman you don’t run to Israel, you run from it?”

written by a Jewish writer. Why would I not believe her when so many other jewish writers have described the same 'Holocaust porn' ?

And then there's this:

“Desmond embroiled in £8m tax wrangle,” Media Guardian (UK), September 24, 2002.

“Richard Desmond [also Jewish], the owner of Express Newspapers, is in dispute with the inland revenue over a £8m tax bill. His argument with the taxman began after a 1993 business deal when United Newspapers agreed to buy 10 of his magazines, resulting in a £12m windfall for the pornography publisher …

The Money Programme revelations could not come at a worse time for Mr Desmond, who is desperately trying to shake off his ‘porn baron’ tag. Only 10 days ago he went on the BBC’s Ten O’Clock News to protest against the use of the word ‘pornographer’.

Demonstrating for the first time he is embarrassed by the P-word, Mr Desmond said of his critics: ‘They use the word pornography… they use all sorts of nasty words.’

Mr Desmond, who, according to his arch-rival David Sullivan, owns 50 top shelf titles and three porn TV channels, carried on: ‘We don’t publish pornography, we publish adult magazines.’

He has been trying to sell his porn empire for the last two years but there have been no takers. The Money Programme confirms reports that Mr Desmond was also spurred into action by a Guardian investigation into one of his pornography websites that offered live lesbian sex as well as other images portraying pregnant women and women as old as 78.

So that's what's to follow in the porn-lineup after the Bonobos become sated with films about adults having sex with children and animals, is it ---- 'pregnant women and geriatric sex ' ?

If you have a god, you'd better start praying, because apparently the 'human' race is neither willing nor able to save itself from it's programmed obsession with genitalia

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:20 PM
Your OP does come off as a little behind the times..

Definitely going to defend the poster who said "this is normal teenager behavior." And will add on the disclaimer "in our society."

Dancing was replaced by sex with clothes on a while ago it seems.

Go to any club and just observe... won't take but 5 minutes to see it.

These are the same places serving to underage girls and boys with fake IDs. This happens everywhere. Some places are happy enough to see you pull out an ID at all whether your 21 or not, you get the mark on the hand, and in you go for a night of drunken mayhem.

I take it your girls aren't teenagers...

What you've noticed is a lot larger than a conspiracy against girls, not to belittle your point.

But yes... society has created a bunch of skanky hos and meat heads that demand it. So what are YOU going to do about it?

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:29 PM

Hollywood movies and television at-large have been increasingly attacked in recent years for propagating a range of decadent values.

82% of Americans polled in a 1989 Associated Press/Media General survey felt that today's movies had too much violence,

80% felt there was too much profanity,

and 72% too much nudity.

72% of a Parents magazine survey supported prohibition "against making fun of religion" in the mass media.

A 1991 Gallup poll showed that 58% of Americans were "offended frequently or occasionally" by prime-time programming.

A 1989 Time/CNN survey documented that 67% of the American public believes the violence in movies was "mainly to blame" for rising teenage violence;

70% supported "greater restraints on the showing of sex and violence" in the movies. [MEDVED, Hollywood, p. 4]

In the 1992 Presidential election both Bill Clinton and Robert Dole criticized Hollywood for glorifying drugs.

In 1999 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy released the results of a joint report that studied the content of the top movie rentals and 1,000 most popular songs of 1996-99. 98% of the films and 27% of the songs "contained reference to either alcohol or drugs, 26% of movies portrayed illicit drug use in a humorous context." [OLDENBERG, p. 8B]

And in a 2000 report, the Federal Trade Commission "accused the entire [entertainment industry] of aggressively selling violent and sexually explicit films, video games and music to kids." [MSNBC, 4-24-01]

"That this [film and TV] industry," says Michael Medved, "more firmly associated with Jews than any other business in the world, is almost universally viewed as a destructive force in our society should be viewed with concern." [MEDVED, p. 42]

Not even focusing on the Hollywood world, in 1999, Rabbi Daniel Lapin wrote an extraordinarily unusual, and stunning, appraisal of the collective negative effects of the modern Jewish community upon the values of America:

"My firm conviction is that we must engage in an honest exploration of the problems and shortcomings of the Jewish community and Jewish communal leadership.

Instead of focusing on imagined enemies, we should ask whether dogmatic commitment to a secular-liberal vision is encouraging dislike for the Jewish community.

Without such honest self-appraisal, Jews will become more and more disliked -- not by crazed individuals but by decent Americans distressed over their rapidly deteriorating culture and the role of Jews in that agenda.

It cannot escape the notice of ordinary Americans coping with the challenge of raising responsible children in a hostile world that many Jewish names and groups lead the fight for policies these Americans see as causing the country's decline." [LAPIN, D., 1999, p. 42]

(note: the above was uttered by JEWISH Rabbi Daniel Lapin)

'... ordinary Americans, coping with the challenge of raising responsible children in a hostile world ... cannot escape the fact that many Jewish names .... are causing the country's decline '

Much more at link:


[edit on 15-5-2010 by Dock9]

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
are you kidding me?

Girls dance like that ALL the time. To people they don't know and just meet, and way dirtier than that. It's normal, that's 'dancing'.

Not that I agree with it, I dont.. but Miley Cyrus is doing it mild there. Oh wait, so now that a celebrity is doing it, it's wrong now? And underaged? people do that since middle school, they give blowjobs in bathrooms in middle school to "gangsters" or "badboys" after they bully someone weaker than them, then get passed around. And it's "normal" and "cool", in fact "what people their age do".

So now that a celebrity is seen doing it what will the girls who have been doing this since 12 think?

[edit on 15-5-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Really now? 16 year old girls give 44 year old men lap dances ALL the time now? Really? Thanks for the laughs man.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by Man1fesT

There's an army of Paid-to-Post subhumans online

posting in hundreds of forums

in the attempt to 'normalise' the sexualisation of children

and in the attempt to normalise what only a few years ago would have been described as 'low' and as 'depravity'

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by Taupin Desciple

We used to watch her show, but then, I noticed they were having her wear padded bras ( actually, it was hard to miss ), because her co-star had started to "grow up"... and not poor Miley...

I began to question the motives... Knowing about this, I can say she's barred in my house from now on.

After all, she's a Disney Zombie, like so many others, displaying strong sexual content in their material when "freed"...

It makes me think of that doc about Aguilera. She was home with here mom and bro, 10 years old top, and he was calling his mom and sister bisdfs and sfgdt, and all the two could do was laugh and say he was adorable... Imagine how adorable he'll be when 20...

They are Idols... And we know what that means, no? God rejects them, and so do I!

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by ImaNutter

About all I can do. Deny ignorance. And that's to keep talking about the problem, and that's what it is, a problem, in forums like this. Maybe if I keep articulating my point well enough, more people might take notice and start shutting off trash like this on T.V. Maybe, just maybe, hollywood might get the hint and stop putting crap like this on T.V. when they stop making money from it. I can't do it on my own.

Just because something is accepted in a large portion of society doesn't mean it's not a problem.

And no, my daughters aren't teenagers, yet. But they're not going to keep watching that sh#t until they are and then desensitized about the subject of sex by the time they're 16.

If billy bob hiccup wants to keep raising white trash in a money suit, that's his business. All I'm saying is keep it off T.V. All these 17 to 24 year olds out there who think it's socially accptable to behave like ignorant tramps? Where do you think they got their ideas from? They pull them out of thin air?

No. They got those ideas from the Brittney's and Miley's of the world because hollywood wants to make a buck and stupid parents let 'em.


posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by Man1fesT

There's an army of Paid-to-Post subhumans online

posting in hundreds of forums

in the attempt to 'normalise' the sexualisation of children

and in the attempt to normalise what only a few years ago would have been described as 'low' and as 'depravity'

This is the kind of weak sauce that divides a country actually. Someone didn't agree with you, so they're now subhuman? That's rich....

There's no need to normalize what's already normalized.

Simple answer is its all our fault... we buy the crap they sell, we use the crap, we give the crap to our kids... WE ARE THE CONSUMER... if you do not like something... quit consuming it...

Don't like society? Well quit consuming it.

As a matter of fact, why is no one bringing up the fact that OP's little girls have Hannah Montannah gear? Thanks to YOU, op, Miley Cyrus is graced with these opportunities.

In all actuality this thread is really nothing more than "Im morally superior, let's talk about our mutual moral superiority..." and has zero to do with fixing the actual problem

Turns out there's a hole bunch of sub humans who post online, free of charge, hell bent on patting each other on the back across the internet...

Yeah it's wrong that we're turning little girls into sex objects but they accept those roles, parents arent keeping them out of those roles, and we perpetuate those roles in the society we all participate in... so I believe the correct phrase here would be

You made your bed, now lie in it.

That goes for all of you buying your little girls Miley Cyrus merchandise too.... even if your moral superiority is fudging with your hypocrisy meter.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by ImaNutter

NO. I don't partronise their garbage

No. They are not allowed in my home

No. My children were protected from such carp

Yes. My children grew to be valuable assets within society and it shows and it's rewarded and they can spot garbage a mile off because I taught them how to spot it when they were young

No. Garbage films and tv content have never been tolerated in this home. Would I drag in garbage from the sewers and serve it to those I love ? No way. And I made sure it never came near our home

No. Parents do not have to tolerate it or accept it or expose their children to it and good parents do not

Yes. I have very high standards and I impressed these on my children from their formative years and all that effort has been rewarded

Yes. Any parent can do the same and many do

No. The Slime-Peddlers will not infect all families, because many parents are aware and also have high standards and refuse to bow to filth and depravity

Yes. this is the front line in parenting and some will fight and win while others will lose, just as with all attacks on the family

And yes, the pendulum swings, always. The values of yesterday might be reversed, but it will be temporary. People will sicken of the depravity spewed by the Hollywood Filth Peddlers. And then there will be a swing back to decency and pride and self-respect

Those who fall by the wayside will pay the price

People don't like to suffer and when the suffering produced by the curent trend towards depravity begins to hurt them personally, they will be strongly motivated to raise their standards and those still emulating the skank-brigade will be regarded as so old-fashioned and left-behind that people will avoid them like the plague

'Decency' will become the 'new kewl'

Pride and self-respect will be the new trend

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by ImaNutter

Um..... let just set the record straight on something here. People aren't mentioning that my daughter has hannah montana gear because she doesn't. I never said she did. I did say that "I'm weaning her off that crap". That crap meaning the T.V. show, not the gear.

And no, I don't think that I'm morally superior to other people. I just have DIFFERENT moral standards than the people in question do. The people in question are in a position where they are able to influence their VERY impressionable target audience. Young girls. And they're doing a lousy job at it.

What good can possibly come from what Miley is doing nowadays and her parents' reaction to it? So she's at the age where she is experimenting sexually. Fine. But with a 44 year old gay man?

Yeah, good example

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Dock9

And if I have my way, they're all going to end up on the unemployment line.

BTW,where can I sign up to get a job doing EXACTLY the opposite of what they're doing? I could use some extra cash.


posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:41 PM
^^^^ That's good Dock9, my parents were a lot like you it seems
And is something you hate when its happening but can't be thankful enough when you're grown.

But all the way back in the OP this question was asked : "So my question is this: Who perpetuates this conspiracy aganst America's young girls more? Hollywood, who keeps putting this trash out? Or us, the T.V. viewers?"

To simply state it, both and more.

If there wasn't a market for it, it wouldn't exist.

But how do you rid society of a market for sexual desires and impulses? I don't think realistically that you can.

Best thing you can hope for is that those who are paid to produce our culture stop exploiting sex.

But if the marketplace doesn't speak up, what incentive would they have to do so if not through lost wages? None.

America is and has been morally bankrupt. Morals and ethics aren't important variables in decision making anymore. Look at presidential promises (from all of them), congressional promises, athletes taking enhancing drugs, judges taking kick backs for sending kids to certain rehab programs, etc etc...

So until the marketplace revolts we can EXPECT to receive more underage girls done up like they're hookers.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by Dock9

You lose people when you cite David Duke.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I agree with you and I also agree with a poster who stated it's not just girls, but boys as well. It's just a little more noticeable with the girls, because of the makeup, and the clothes.

Heck, the sexualization of ordinary everyday life has been going on for a while now, but I have really noticed an increased blitz of it especially in the last couple of years.

A perfect example would be the increase in extremely low cut tops for women.

Not too long ago, my family was at a family restaurant where several women of all ages had tops on that were so low cut (to the point that their breasts were about to pop out) that I was embarrassed for them, and I don't think it is appropriate for the young girls and boys to see this type of dress from adults and teenagers because it sends the wrong message.

I have a 13 year old daughter and our family, including my husband sometimes, have been watching Miley/Hannah, and also some other shows that young girls like.

For the past year or so especially, I have been noticing an increasingly provocative dress (with flashes of cleavage!) and some other things that concern me, in all the shows she likes, except for the show I, Carly, which will probably get started with the same thing here soon.

I have been telling my daughter and my husband for about the last two years that Miley Cyrus was about to cross over onto the "dark side" real soon.

After her recent "pole dance" to her song, Party in the USA at the Teen Music awards show last year, I told them both, here she goes, you watch.

So check out her new music video for her new song, Can't be Tamed, which came out just recently..... Miley Cyrus' New Video, Too Sexy, or Age Appropriate?

Looks like an agenda is being ramped up. They aren't even getting us used to the change gradually, as they did with Britney, lol. (See Britney's "If you seek Amy" video, WOW!!!)

I guess *they* know that most parents and adults won't bother to check out the videos that go with the songs, which, if you have young children, you really should.

It can be extremely *illuminating*, lol.

That's my $1.50.

God Bless


[edit on 15-5-2010 by sezsue]

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Big surprise, the link is dead. Infact, every youtube video of this has been removed. I guess Disney was trying to protect their little whore from getting too much bad press. Oh darn too late!

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
reply to post by ImaNutter

Um..... let just set the record straight on something here. People aren't mentioning that my daughter has hannah montana gear because she doesn't. I never said she did. I did say that "I'm weaning her off that crap". That crap meaning the T.V. show, not the gear.

Point remains the same.. you tuned in. You improved her ratings. Without people like you and your daughters watching her show, she wouldn't get to be in the position she is.

And no, I don't think that I'm morally superior to other people. I just have DIFFERENT moral standards than the people in question do.

Okay keep that in mind for one second....

And they're doing a lousy job at it.

SO which one is it? Your morals are better or different? You can't celebrate difference in one sentence then insult someones work for being different than what you would do in the next one.

The people in question are in a position where they are able to influence their VERY impressionable target audience. Young girls.

Then let's talk about someone who has EVEN MORE INFLUENCE over these young girls. Ma and Pa.

These people in question, Ma and Pa, are in a position where they are able to influence THE ENTIRE LIVES of THEIR children by paying more attention to what they do and involve themselves with as children... some people are doing a lousy job of it. Not saying you are, don't get me wrong, but I'm illustrating a point.

The parent is responsible for the child. Television has zero responsibility towards your child, but will gladly take that off of your hands if you so choose. And sadly too many parents do make that choice.

What good can possibly come from what Miley is doing nowadays and her parents' reaction to it? So she's at the age where she is experimenting sexually. Fine. But with a 44 year old gay man?

It sparked the entirety of your fight against this conspiracy... a discussion. Seems like enough good to me...

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:09 PM
I think this is just another classic case of "i would not let my daughter do that so they shouldn't let theirs". Personally i do not really care, i know when i was 14 girls were doing a LOT worse than that.
Just mind your own business and look after your own. Let your kids watch what they want but just watch over what they do. Just because you have a standard for what your kids do does not mean that every parent should raise their children according to your wishes.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by Taupin Desciple

Part of the problem is the way parents handle instilling the realities of sex, character and happiness in their child's thinking. Instead of fearing them into dysfunction and into extremes of acting out, you need to talk to them about having a fulfilling sex life with one person and let know that sex isn't wrong, but that, like anything, it can be misused.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:13 PM
I would say that the OP does sound a bit old fashioned. Nothing wrong with bringing you children up that way.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a 17 year old dancing provocatively.


Seventeen is the average age of first sexual experience with 30% being between 15 and 17.

So yes "it is what people her age do" just not in public.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by daskakik

Simply because it is common does not mean it is right.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in