If you can’t bring yourself to condemn someone who drugged and anally raped a 13 year-old girl, you are part of the problem.

Moreover, if you want to know how Hollywood feels about sex with children, you can start by watching their films.

Fox News:

If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry.

Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him “what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry.” Weiss has pleaded not guilty.

On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17. Murphy’s credits include placing young actors in kid-friendly fare like “Bad News Bears,” “The School of Rock,” “Cheaper by the Dozen 2” and the forthcoming “Three Stooges.”

Revelations of this sort come as no surprise to former child star Corey Feldman.

Feldman, 40, himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, unflinchingly warned of the world of pedophiles who are drawn to the entertainment industry last August. “I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia,” Feldman told ABC’s Nightline. “That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry… It’s the big secret.”

Another child star from an earlier era agrees that Hollywood has long had a problem with pedophilia. “When I watched that interview, a whole series of names and faces from my history went zooming through my head,” Paul Peterson, 66, star of The Donna Reed Show, a sitcom popular in the 1950s and 60s, and president of A Minor Consideration, tells FOXNews.com. “Some of these people, who I know very well, are still in the game.”

“This has been going on for a very long time,” concurs former “Little House on the Prairie” star Alison Arngrim. “It was the gossip back in the ‘80s. People said, ‘Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.’ People talked about it like it was not a big deal.”

Arngrim, 49, was referring to Feldman and his co-star in “The Lost Boys,” Corey Haim, who died in March 2010 after years of drug abuse.

“I literally heard that they were ‘passed around,’” Arngrim said. “The word was that they were given drugs and being used for sex. It was awful – these were kids, they weren’t 18 yet. There were all sorts of stories about everyone from their, quote, ‘set guardians’ on down that these two had been sexually abused and were totally being corrupted in every possible way.”

Full story here.

ABC News:

Roman Polanski makes his first public acknowledgement about Samantha Geimer, the 13-year-old model he sexually assaulted in Los Angeles, in a documentary on his life that premiered Tuesday at the Zurich Film Festival.

“She is a double victim: my victim, and a victim of the press,” Polanski says of Geimer in Laurent Bouzereau’s “Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir.” Polanski took to the stage at the Zurich Film Festival Tuesday to accept a lifetime achievement award two years after he was originally intended to receive it, as he was arrested and incarcerated in a Zurich prison at the request of U.S. authorities when he arrived to receive the honor in 2009.

Here’s Samantha Geimer, the woman Polanski raped when she was 13, on GMA today, “He didn’t mean to hurt me.”:

—–

We should all be relieved Geimer has a sense of closure with respect to the crime Polanski committed against her. But Polanski also committed a crime against society. But because Polanski’s a wealthy celebrity with powerful friends, he’s been able to escape justice for decades now. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how poorly the system treated him or even that his victim has accepted his apology. In the real world outside of child raping-excusing Hollywood, you do the crime, you go through the system and if the system is unjust in some way, there are other parts of the system to remedy that.

If you fix cars for a living or clean hotel rooms, those are your options. But if you’re one of the Beautiful People, you flee to lavish resorts, continue to work with A-listers, and are greeted like some kind of folk hero from the planet Child Molester.

Want to know what would end the media storm that gives Ms. Geimer (understandably) so much stress and anxiety? If people would stop making movies in defense of Polanski, if Polanski would go into seclusion and stop participating in those movies, and if film festivals would stop honoring Polanski.

Isn’t it amazing how the very same people who attack the media for giving Geimer so much grief are also the ones who constantly feed the media. And by participating in this documentary, isn’t Polanski doing just that?

Better yet, nothing would end the talk about this crime faster than if Polanski would turn himself in and pay his debt to society. Once he did so, once he was no longer a fugitive, we could all move on.

The only people keeping this story alive are Polanski and his defenders. 

Last year Miramax released “Doubt,” a high-profile piece of Oscar-bait starring Academy Award winners’ Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Streep plays a puritanical nun on a moral crusade to expose a Priest (Hoffman) who she believes is sexually abusing a 12 year-old boy. Both characters are portrayed as unsympathetic (especially Streep’s) but in just a couple scenes the boy’s working-class mother (Mrs. Miller, played by Viola Davis) is established as the moral center of the film – the only one truly interested in the welfare of her child. When Mrs. Miller’s informed that her son’s being molested, the Moral Center Of The Film responds that her 12 year-old boy is gay, a social outcast, and beaten regularly by his homophobic father … so maybe the best option for him is a sexual relationship with a forty-something child predator.

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, and written and directed by Oscar-winner Alan Ball, last year’s “Towelhead” is a film Roman Polanski might have seen many, many times while wearing a rain coat. The protagonist is 13 year-old Jasira (played by the then barely eighteen Summer Bishil) and the story surrounds her sexual abuse at the hands of a number of men, including Eckhart’s Gulf War Vet. Rather than the repeated abuse damaging the young girl, the filmmaker portrays the rapes and molestations as a healthy and sexually liberating experience. More than once the audience is “treated” to lingering shots of Jasira’s bare legs as she discovers the joys of the orgasm while masturbating to photographs of naked women.

Kate Winslet won last year’s Best Actress Oscar for her role in “The Reader,” in which she plays a “sympathetic” Nazi guilty of mass murder who seduces and then engages in a steamy sexual affair with a 15 year-old boy. The sex scenes between this mature woman and a child lean heavily on the erotic, as opposed to the creepy. (The “sympathetic Nazi” issue we’ll save for another post.)

Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.

Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy. Hollywood deviants never gathered together to plan for a slate of films aimed at a drip-drip campaign designed to dull our moral outrage towards the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s worse than that. We’re up against a culture; the same culture that can’t quite grasp why a child rapist should have to serve prison time for a crime he’s confessed to.

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.

The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.

Whether it’s true or not that seventy-five years ago Clark Gable nearly bankrupted the t-shirt industry by not wearing one in “It Happened One Night,” what is true is that billions of dollars are spent annually by advertisers convinced sound and images can alter behavior. You’d have to be a fool to make an argument against the persuasive powers of moving images, but those fools do exist. Most of them are liars.

The Hollywood Left is many things but they’re not fools and they fully understand the power of the medium under their control. Certainly, damning everyone who works in the entertainment world would be unfair, but this is also a culture where only a handful of “names” were willing to speak out against the pro-Polanski movement – including many Leftists who have never been shy about speaking out in the past.

The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the most vocal from this current crop seem all too ready to tarnish that legacy as they target our children for profit and worse.

Is it too much to ask of the Hollywood Left that they show as much intolerance towards the sexualization of young children as they do towards conservatives and Christians?

That question has already been answered.

Some of Polanski’s early apologists and defenders are likely now entertaining discomforting second-thoughts about their hasty signing of the petition demanding his immediate release from captivity, as indeed some are also now furiously backpedaling in regret over their indiscretion of speaking out publicly on his behalf. 

It seems an appropriate time to review some origins and history underlying the modern psychological rationales currently attempting to dilute and evade Polanski’s morally deviant nihilism, and the cognitive dissonance (i.e., “it wasn’t ‘rape’ rape”) introjected by countercultural pseudo-intellectual sycophants. 

Its members’ values inculcation was, with purposeful destructiveness, initiated early last century by an all-too-often overlooked intellectual vanguard. So, in deconstructing the value of his sexual crimes, Polanski’s sophistic defenders were/are perhaps unwittingly acting out a reflexive cultural pre-conditioning, rather than logic and reason. This is hardly surprising, considering the players, yet the whys and wherefores are important, if only for historical perspective. 

Consider last century’s counter-revolutionary works by postmodern cultural Marxism’s Intellectual Moron gurus: 

Such as Alfred C. Kinsey, whose “‘pansexual worldview’ says that all forms of sexual expression are equal and acceptable.” 

Or, Herbert Marcuse’s Eros & Civilization that, pace William Lind, ‘condemned all restrictions on sexual behavior. Calling instead for “polymorphous perversity” that, by the way, helped open the door for aspects of the political correctness movement. Its self-congratulatory, narcissistic foundation for Marcuse’s good human society whose liberating tolerance for “non-procreative Eros” was intended, per Roger Kimball, to help society ‘find great enlightenment and great happiness which was supposed to be the key to utopia’. 

UC Berkeley professor Martin Jay (2:20 mark…) summarizes that polymorphous perversity “argues that at certain early developmental levels of the human psyche, there was a potential for sexual expression/sexual pleasure which had not yet been organized into the restricted notions of heterosexual sexuality. And that these had some sort of capacity to be reinvigorated.” 

Correlation: Leading Polanski petitioner Woody Allen has produced intimate knowledge of this Freudian psychoanalytic term (promoted by Marcuse):  In his Oscar® winning “Annie Hall,” Allen’s character tells his girlfriend he loves her because she is “polymorphic perverse.”  Likewise, in Allen’s “Celebrity” a nubile female model claims to be a “polymorphic perverse,” whom the protagonist finds invigorating. In another of Allen’s films, “Manhattan,” he portrays a divorced man dating a high-schooler (Mariel Hemingway). 

Elsewhere more recently, in American Splendor, Joyce Brabner informs Harvey Pekar that his friend Robert Crumb is “polymorphously perverse.” 

Coincidence? Not a chance… 

–

PJTV’s Bill Whittle  neatly condenses this history in “The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness.” 

Polanski’s current intolerant defenders’ politically correct instincts to apply empathy and/or glorify the iconic-old-fugitive-child-rapist might afford some comfort while insulated within the closed-circles of elite and fashionable salons and retreats. 

However, the practical consequences of such a rash decision — and any subsequent indignant retreats in faux-‘victimhood’ or mountings to self-anointed moral ‘high ground’ should, for those with any common sense of decency remaining, become imminently difficult, if not impossible to ignore from colleagues, audiences and customers whom reside in the real world down here on Olympus’ lower slopes. 

The temptation of mercy and patient edification for the clueless (a.k.a., ‘useful idiots’) is strong and perhaps even good. After all, it’s really little more than their ignorant do-gooder idealism that causes them to swoon for perverted totalitarian ideologies. 

Intolerant, stubbornly divisive, self-satisfied Polanski-apologist glitterati, continue to receive well-earned rejection and scorn from regular Americans. 

As for child-rapist Polanski: it is long past time for the Crimes & Consequences of this perverted ‘progressive’ icon to be administered once and for all… Guilty as charged.