STEVENPILL's Xanga

Killer Parents

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04:03 GMT

Ever since the Susan Smith child murder case in South Carolina, nothing can be taken off the table from the onset of such an investigation. Not from the law enforcement point of view. Ask any big city cop in particular. Killer parents DO exist... and as never before in their frequency.

Certainly, there have always been criminal parents who have neglected and exploited their children to sometimes lethal degrees. Often, these parents were abused or neglected children themselves and, thus, had their own parental instincts muted by the experience... although this is hardly an excuse. But never in modern times have we seen so many horrendous and seemingly conscienceless crimes by parents against their own children. The motives tend to fall into three categories, based on those parents' outlook.

1. Children as sex objects or otherwise to be employed as sources of perverse satisfaction.

2. Children who ultimately fail in their conceived purpose as emotional and/or financial crutches.

3. Children who come to be regarded as subhuman figures who can be discarded when inconvenient.

The promulgation of these attitudes, I maintain, can be traced largely to the dehumanization of our culture. This influence is now so widespread and readily available to children themselves that it, in effect, puts its stamp on the immature psyche and becomes solidified upon maturity. From the baby boom generation onward, this effect has grown to ever greater degrees. And with it, so have the instances of crimes against and by children.

If that potential is there in the parent's mind, it can take as little as a media reported child crime to set them off. This last instance (that of little Somer Thompson) happened in Florida. It likewise followed closely on the heels of another such tragedy and the trial of an infanticidal mother in another; both having gained national attention. Copy Cat Crimes against children? And by their own mothers? Once such things were inconceivable. Not anymore.

Certainly not to investigators, either. These are warning signs for both police and citizens alike; whether post or PRE crime:

1. A household with a single mother or estranged parents.

2. Known or suspected alcohol/drug abuse by family members.

3. Familial police record. (Even a string of petty crimes can be indicative of worse, underlying problems.)

4. Previous signs in the child of abuse or neglect; physical OR mental.

5. The family's status among their neighbors.

6. The physical state of the home itself. (Many tip-offs here- sometimes subtle.)

7. Parental behavior after a child goes missing. (Such as a wildly emotional appeals to the media, casting blame on an anonymous and stereotypical suspect type that only they claimed to have seen, a noticably "carefree" lifestyle afterward, etc.)

8. Associates of known or suspected criminality.

9. And, as always, a stash of pornographic material.

When a sense of personal entitlement pervails, it can grow to negate not only the higher instincts, but the fundamental ones as well. Abuse, exploitation and even the murder of one's own children CAN be the result. It doesn't just happen in Hollywood.

It should also be noted that the Thompson neighborhood contained an unusually high number of registered sex offenders. They, in this case, were rapidly removed from the list of suspects during the natural first phase of the investigation. So... who does that leave in the process of elimination? Naturally (as in the Jaycee Dugard case) the possibility of a pervert from outside picking a "target of opportunity" is always there. But, as is most often in all crimes against women and children, the perpetrator will be someone the victim knows. With children; most often a family member or another close authority figure.

Police are well aware of these facts. Good citizens should be, also. We're not just our brother's keeper. We, as adults, are secondary parents to every child with whom we come in contact. A misguided sense of "minding one's own business" should not deter us from at least expressing our concerns when we suspect that a child is being abused, neglected or exploited by parents or guardians. Because- if it is true- that child may be in mortal peril; either in the course of that abuse or as a prelude to premeditated tragedy.

A Warning To Parents

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:22:04 GMT

Dear Readers:

The night before last, a long expected event occurred. The motion picture "Hounddog" appeared on television for the first time. It is being run on the Showtime premium cable channel. For how long it will appear and on what other networks it may yet gravitate is, as yet, unknown to me. When I can discover more, I'll post an addendem to this article. For the meantime, I'd seriously suggest that parents utilize precautions for their children if they have the means to access that channel. Fortunately, Showtime had (at least!) the minor decency to show this film only during the nighttime.

A number of people who have seen the film via DVD have, as expected, written me to say that the movie "wasn't THAT bad". In comparison to the standard R-rated fare from Hollywood, one might say this. But this is superficial. It is also what the filmmakers hope the reaction will be. That's because what you see is only a small part of the story and the overall issue. This is in keeping with the reasons for my long standing advocacy against the "Hounddog" film.

Allow me to elaborate.

There are three prime considerations one must take into mind when evaluating a motion picture... especially where children are concerned: Content, concept and condition... C3.

Content: This is what filmmakers want you to consider as the sole factor. It must be remembered that the final content of a film is the result of an often laborious editing procedure. In some films, this process can be elaborate and extensive indeed. Some are so through the necessity to "scale down" a major effort to a watchable length for audiences. With others, it is the result of a very negative reaction to the "first cut". This was the case with "Hounddog"... over a three year period and through three (likely four!) major edits. When you see this in a minor independent film, that alone should send up warning flags.

The other two factors are those that CAN'T be edited.

Concept: What is this movie trying to say? Not only in specific words and images, but in the overall message? Filmmakers can prevaricate or lie outright about this and, in cases of a particularly offensive and/or inept work, often do. But the basic message of the plot is always there. In "Hounddog's" case, the story was about child sex and adult degeneracy. That and nothing more. It was also aimed at a child audience, as it utilized- as its central character- the premier child actress in Hollywood at the time. Filmmakers (especially those who have no qualms about exploiting child actors) are fully aware that children- more than adults- are drawn to familiar names in a cast first and foremost. They are less liable to see beyond the name of a child who made some acclaimed family films previously. Again; this was intended. Also- and repulsively- the filmmakers were aware that this would attract a certain "adult audience" whose outlook toward children is hardly wholesome.

Note: The child star I refer to here is Dakota Fanning. Dakota quite possibly had the most dramatic rise to fame and enjoyed the longest reign as an A-listed child actress of any other since Shirley Temple. For six years, she was the undisputed and most acclaimed child star in Hollywood, with a number of truly laudable films. Unfortunately, she had a few that weren't family fare as well. But they were largely forgiven due to her other qualities. But such fame also attracts other kinds of "admirers". As I once noted to a poster, "Do you think that there's a pervert in the country who hasn't, at one time or another, dreamed of having Dakota in his power?". With the advent of "Hounddog", the first American film to incorporate actual child pornography in its makeup, the dreams of every predator were answered.

This brings us to the third factor.

Condition: During the January 2007 Sundance Film Festival (where "Hounddog" was first run for audiences), that film was the source of considerable public debate. Sean Hannity, during the two weeks of coverage on his "Hannity & Combes" TV talk show, touched on the main issue of condition when he mentioned, "A lot ended up on the cutting room floor". Note that "Hounddog" had already, since July 2006, been edited twice. This was the result of its early "outing" by set technicians (before it even wrapped!) and the shocked reaction of reviewers to a sneak preview just prior to Sundance's opening. Actually, the condition factor goes beyond even the editing. It mainly involves what was done with three child actors in the process of the film's making, both on and off camera.

Now we come to the heart of why this movie is the most despicable (and dangerous) film that Hollywood has ever produced. Child actors, no matter how experienced or jaded by previous unwholesome works, are still children. To turn them into vessels of sex and violence, they must be conditioned into an acceptance of personal actions that are alien to a child's nature and contrary to any decent upbringing. True, in the case of mild "fantasy violence", a child can often be effectively shielded from trauma. But not always even then. In the case of gross violence and sexual themes (much less actual interaction with adults and other children) this is impossible. It will effect their hearts and souls. And, through their travails (and the non-imaged concepts) it will reach out to their peer-aged audiences.

"How can you do your job and day your lines if you don't know what's going on?"- Lukas Haas ("Witness"- age 9)

I could go into this in much greater detail. However, I'll refer the reader to my many other discourses on the "Hounddog" subject for this... essays that not only include my personal evaluations, but those of many others far more involved in this issue and over a greater span of time. Some, you may note, are former child actors themselves or otherwise long involved in the film industry.

"Hounddog" was the first (as far as I know!) American film to be conceived and executed in child pornography. This must be understood clearly. It also represents a moral and physical threat to every child in this country. It first kicked open a door to an entirely new level of child exploitation, one which has since spawned a host of other child exploitive films. None, as yet, to its level of obscenity... but close. The fact that this movie, despite its violation of a number of child protective laws, escaped prosecution and can be accessed now is the prime reason.

Children are vulnerable. All children; actors and audience alike, morally and physically. This point cannot be overemphasized. Please exercise ever greater caution with your children during the time this movie is being featured on television. And, while you're at it, offer some prayers for the child actors of the Industry- in all their thousands- who must so directly deal with "Hounddog's" aftermath. They're kids, too. And as public figures, they are, in a very real sense, our own kids as well. God help them all.

Steven Mark Pilling

Addendum: Apparently- and in an unusual occurrance- the movie was only shown that one time for this week. I assume from this that the film was shown conditionally to gauge its reception. owing to its extremely controversial content and history. I encourage all readers to send a note of protest to Showtime for airing this work of depravity.

Depravity's Progress

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:35:12 GMT

Dear Readers: About six weeks ago, I was reviewing an online article by the well known columnist and child advocate Rebecca Hagelin. It was entitled "Disney's Decline?" and offered her opinions about a series of occurrances that held the Disney Corporation's somewhat tarnished family friendly reputation in an even more questionable light. One of the responses was a very lengthy one by an unabashed liberal (named Sol Invectus!) who was of the opinion that the traditional outlook toward children should be scrapped in any case. I'd seen those kind of arguments before, having had previously debated the homosexual agenda. I'm also aware of the mentality behind those who think that the sexual usage of children- to any degree and in any venue- is justified. Therefore, I composed a response which became a running debate. This is the gist of it.

Dear Sol:

It's obvious from your series of rants that you represent the Hollywood-minded-anything-is-moral-if-it-feels-good-do-it element of society. Nowhere did I say that 1965 was the "Camelot" of decency in America. (Camelot, by the way, was a liberal fiction woven around a licentious President.) In fact, ever since the Warren Court's 1963 decision legalizing pornography- coupled with the rise of Kinsey related groups and the institution of the MPAA movie ratings system- the moral standards of the country were beginning a downward spiral. And, as always, the liberal circles were quick to embrace it for political value. They still do, as you epitomize.

It's one thing to talk about immoral public figures... who are hardly a new phenomenon in human history! It's another to legalize and legitimize destructive conduct. And it's yet another to publicize that behavior in the media and in entertainment as less than despicable. That has consequences; not only in public affairs, but- in particular- in the example it sets for growing children.

In that latter category comes the greatest tragedy of all. Since the "Taxi Driver" event in 1976- and, especially, since the outright pornification of preteen kids by Dakota Fanning in 2006- the premise of children as "little adults" and "sexual beings" has become openly promoted by Hollywood. And where Hollywood- the face of liberal depravity- leads, the popular culture follows. And that culture- more prevalent and intrusive than at any time in history- attacks the hearts and minds of growing children... and leads them to misery and ruin.

But this, in your world, is "liberation". There's another word for it, though. It's "decadency"- the fatal disease that collapses civilizations. Civilization itself is built around the prime endeavor of all moral adults; the protection, nurturement and moral guidance of children. When we fail (or reject!) this concept- the mandate of God's Word- we fail in all. We fail our children when we desecrate them in public and when we turn them into objects of scorn, exploitation and sexualization. When we devalue them to the status of sometimes useful animals- and in their own minds as well- we commit the ultimate blasphemy.

Nor am I surprised that you turn this debate into a promotion for sexual deviancy as well. Sexualizing children so as to make them "available" is a long standing homosexual dream. Perversion, despite what you say, is not a natural state. Nor is it a "right". It is a soul destroying mental obsession.

Children who are exposed to it are far more likely to be drawn into it. Children upon whom sex is inflicted are victimized by it for their entire lives. Children who see other children in depictions of gross violence and sexual abuse are influenced into accepting it as the norm. So, in fact, are "some" adults. Thus, in total, the dramatic rise (since the mid-1960's) in sexual and violent crimes perpetrated against children and BY children.

We will not allow our children to be your prey, Sol. Neither in body or in mind. Pass that along to your "associates".

And if one of them should be a fellow New Yorker named Deborah Kampmeier, please convey my renewed greetings to her... and assure her that I will continue to pursue her for her cinematic crimes against children for as long as I am able. She is the one who conceived and executed the most landmark work of child porn in American history. Only a true deviant could manage that. Therefore, if you are not friends, you should be. Look her up next time you're in Clinton NY.

Steven Mark Pilling

P.S. Today marked the first television showing of the final edited version of "Hounddog", Kampmeier's obscene masterpiece. No matter how much has been extracted from the film over three year's time, it remains the most vile of American movies. Keep your children away from Showtime in the late hours. Yourselves, too.

Constitution Day

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:33:50 GMT

Yesterday marked the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. On September 17, 1787, after months of writing, debate, re-writing, turmoil, hardship and yet more re-writing, the delegates of the 13 "several states"- in the 12th year of America's independence- gathered together and solemnly signed the compact that they had labored on so hard.

How many of you knew that?

But there's more.

Since Independence, the old Continental Congress of the Revolution had been succeeded by The Articles of Confederation. Essentially, they were a continuation of the provisional wartime government. They also included many of the glaring defects that had manifested themselves during that time. Essentially, the country was a loose association of 13 smaller countries in mutual alliance. "America" was a term, not a nation. And it had a government without any real authority. Having won their freedom so dearly, the states were reluctant to relinquish any real power, fearing the creation of another tyranny akin to that they had just divested themselves of. Nor were their fears unjustified, as history before and since has proven.

It was left to this group of delegates, convened in the Confederation capital of Philadelphia, to create a new union; one which could produce an efficient national government, yet protect the rights and liberties of the states and the citizens in the process. This was a daunting task. In any form of rule, there is a trade-off between the liberty of citizens and the authority of government. To strike just the right balance- and enforce it- through the virtue of a well-worded document could only be accomplished through a masterpiece of statesmanship.

The very concept of a Constitution as the basis of a nation's existance was revolutionary in itself. In other nations up to that time, authority derived from tradition, myriads of disconnected laws and, quite often, the dictates of monarchs who ruled by (alleged) Divine Right. Thus, preceding republics had tended to be ephemeral. The idea of one in authority for an extended time- and over such a large region- was a monumental challenge. The delegates, being educated men, were well aware of how, under similar conditions, the Roman Republic had collapsed and devolved into the Caesarian Empire... and had sown the seeds of its own destruction.

Fortunately for America- and the world- a great body of talent resided in the Constitutional Convention. George Washington, one of history's great soldiers and statesmen, presided. James Madison, another Virginian and a close disciple of Thomas Jefferson, played a key role in its wording. Alexander Hamilton of New York pressed for a strong, financially sound union. Benjamin Franklin, with his unique blend of wisdom and good humor, was vital in smoothing over the turbulence between the federalist and democrat factions.

Thomas Jefferson was only there in spirit, but his words had been heeded by one and all.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

"The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases."

And, as Madison himself put it. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

The ultimate result of their labors came to pass on this day when, in the waning days of the summer of 1787, the 38 remaining delegates put their names on the document. They had succeeded in that "masterpiece" of governance that had elluded so many for so long. It was the document that would prove the foundation of the greatest nation in history and the inspiration for many other peoples beyond our borders. Together with the Declaration of Independence and the Holy Bible, it has stood as one of the three great pillars upon which rests the Edifice of Freedom.

But there was also an addendum. The Bill of Rights. Hamilton, as the leading federalist, had succeeded in inserting many of his precepts for a strong national union. Madison, however, as head of the democrat wing, realized that the state governments would never ratify the Constitution without further guarantees of state and citizen protection against federal intrusions. Thus were the ten amendments of the Bill authored. On their basis was the Constitution (grudgingly, in some cases!) accepted by both sides. The Bill of Rights was finally adopted on June 15, 1790 and made part of the Constitution. Soon afterward, the Constitution was ratified by the states.

It's mystifying to me that Constitution Day, a commemoration of an event so telling in the history of America and the world at large, garners so little attention. What political leader mentioned it? How many of us knew? Where was it proclaimed beyond a notation in the newspaper under the heading "On This Date..."?

There's another aspect to this event that we must forever bear in mind. No document, no matter how well written and conceived, can endure without the vigilance of the citizens. Since the passage of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended a mere 17 times. Yet, far more telling on its effectiveness has been the redefinition of its meaning by congressional negligence, presidential activism and judicial fiat. Even the most sturdy marble statue can crack and erode over time without maintenance. So has it been with the Constitution. The heart and soul of it remains in those sacred first ten amendments. And it has been at them that the attacks on constitutional viability have been most often directed.

The Constitution, despite what many modern politicians and pundits say, is not a "living document" beyond the amendment procedure. It was deliberately made sturdy in order that the mistakes of other failed republics would not be repeated. Its precepts are carved in granite so that ambitious, would-be autocrats cannot easily deface it. But ultimately it depends on we, the people- the inheritors of the Founders' great work- to hold true to it and defend it.

What form of government was America to have?, asked the Philadelphia lady of Benjamin Franklin. "A republic", he famously replied, "... if you can keep it."

That is why every public official- and every member of the Armed Forces- takes an oath that specifies the defense of the Constitution. This document not only turned us into a single nation. It defined that nation. It IS America. Therefore we, the loyal citizens, must defend it against betrayal and corruption with unceasing vigilance. For without it, we are nothing... and freedom fails the test of time.

So let's honor Constitution Day hereafter. And, in doing so, let's never let it devolve into a "three day weekend" as so many other commemorative days have become. This is an important observance that, in our modern turmoil over the Constitution's very meaning- and justifiable fears for its survival- could not be more important. Let three dates in history be held as sacred by Americans in representation of those Three Pillars of America that I mentioned.

July 4th: Independence Day

September 17th: Constitution Day

December 25th: Christmas Day

Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PTO: Pedophile Theater of Operations

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:05:33 GMT

That's right. Not "Parents Teachers Organizations". Nor, as us older citizens would remember, the Pacific Theater of Operations from World War II. A newer battle front is raging even now. It's not confined to America's schools, either. Nor is it limited to the Pacific nations. (Although both are important in this struggle.) This Theater is world wide. It is being fought in schools, churches and public areas. It is being waged in police stations, courts of law and in the legislatures. It is being fiercely contested across the breadth of the World Wide Web. It reaches into our very homes through the internet, television, magazines and all modern forms of mass communication. It's aimed at the bodies, hearts and souls of our most Precious Resource... our children themselves.

And it's being lost.

It's ironic that the United Nations, an organization that has turned a blind eye to so many such abuses, should now highlight them. Here, however, are the recent results of a study conducted under their auspices. Two figures that should give pause to any parents who carelessly think that evil ends at their doorstep.

750,000: The estimated number of active pedophiles around the world.

7,000,000: The number of active websites that feature or promote indecent acts with children.

These are grim numbers. They are also, unquestionably, vastly understated. And they do not begin to encompass the true extent of the threat.

It should be noted here that the FBI's Center For Missing and Exploited Children has become a large portion of the Bureau's total operations. Not only does the Center provide a clearing house for the reported abuse of American children, it is likewise the focal point of the campaign against internet predators and child-obscene websites. So great has this latter arena become that it encompasses the bulk of their child protective measures. Other areas, such as cultural and theatrical abuses, have been "triaged" into the background as the FBI tries to utilize its limited resources into the most immediate physical threat. State- and even local- law enforcement agencies and legal authorities contribute to their efforts to varying degrees, even while hampered by archaic laws and their numerous "loopholes", fantastically inept rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other juristic bodies, the deliberate disregard of authorities influenced by "special interests" and the distractions of the public outlook due to foreign and domestic crises.

The result has been a steadily growing army of the absolute dregs of the human race. Nor are these vermin any longer confined to the shadows, to individuals who stalk playgrounds or to the dark corners of the interent. They've gone mainstream. Organizations such as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), websites for "locating" young children (think Jack McClellan), "talent scouts" for the burgeoning (and increasingly R-rated) field of child acting and modeling, news sources' endless editorials stressing "First Amendment Rights" (that never were intended by the Founders) over child protection, the open distribution of lewd graphics and "cartoons" (legalized by a recent SCOTUS decision!) that feature sexualized children and the proclivity of teachers, lawmakers and even clergymen to cover up the despicable practices of their peers- and all this over more than a half century- has grown into a threat of monster proportions.

Like Islamic terrorism, it was allowed to fester in silence- regarded as a "local problem"... until it finally exploded in our faces. In both cases, it was seen by many as one of "those" issues that will be forever with us and should not be the focus of "undue" concern. A law enforcement issue... not a war. There were more pressing worries! The economy, the environment, sports, potholes... but not the physical and spiritual safety of children in an increasingly dangerous society. Those who raised the issue were increasingly derided and shouted down by leftists as being fascists, as Christian activists (to them, a worse epithet than "child exploiter") and as anti-First Amendment fringe groups.

For decades, pedophilia has grown steadily in its influence with the rise of legalized pornography. The connection is irrefutable. Virtually every child predator ever taken into custody was found to have a "library"- often enormous- of porn in every form and venue. Nor did it begin there. The infamous Kinsey Report- initiated as far back as 1947- attempted (and succeeded!) in influencing the Western "intelligencia" into the acceptance of sexual perversion (to include child sexuality) as a "normal" human phenomenon. This attitude spread to medical journals and other editorials... in spite of the abundant evidence that Dr. Kinsey's findings were not only flawed, but were obtained from "researchers" of known deviant traits. That included Dr. Kinsey himself.

Nevertheless, it was embraced by the growing left oriented movements in this country- and elsewhere- who rejected traditional values and sought to impose their "alternate" lifestyle over Christian mores. Some did so as a road to political power. Others did because they sought to justify their own perversity to society... and to themselves. And still others- the pornographers- saw the financial opportunities inherent in the decriminalization of their trade. It was little wonder that the Playboy Foundation of Hugh Hefner established hard ties to the Kinsey Institute in the 1950's. Then, with the Warren Court's decision of 1963, the "shackles" to the porn industry were largely struck off. The result was the "Sexual Revolution" of the late 1960's and 1970's where sex- without family and without responsibility- became rampant. A whole generation had been desensitized by pornography into rejecting the very basis of civilized human existance.

At this point, I would encourage the reader to access the works of Dr. Judith Reisman, who has pursued this issue for decades. Perhaps no one person has such a thorough knowledge of how pornography, criminality and child obscenity has advanced, hand-in-hand.

The steady degradation in the status of children came about in degrees as pornography and the Free Love doctrines advanced. "Men's magazines" ("Playboy" and its emerging competitors) featured editorials, fiction and cartoons that depicted children as depraved and willing sex objects. "Child psychologists"- often of dubious credentials- started to infest the public schools; parents being largely ignorant of them or their purpose. The depiction of children in films started to devolve with the collapse of the overseeing National Board of Review. Its replacement by the Motion Pictures Academy of Arts (MPAA) ratings system in 1966 insured that films of pornographic content could be made openly. In 1976, a famous movie called "Taxi Driver" utilized a major child star in an overtly sexualized role. Then, exactly thirty years later, actual sexual enactments were featured between adults and a child- and between children themselves- in a cheap independent film entitled "Hounddog".

My regular readers and associates will note the importance to which I have attached the "Hounddog" event. Indeed, it was- as I have so often attested- a landmark event in the advance of child indecency over the course of my 58 years of life. Correspondingly, it has been the subject of many of my columns; both directly and indirectly. I refer you to them for my reasons as to why I have so fervently pursued that issue.

But "Hounddog" was not my beginning of my involvement in the issue of decency with children. My years in the U.S. Army (in the 1970's) as a military policeman introduced me to the problem head-on. The demoralized, undisciplined and pornified garrison life of that era (the Army still being saturated with Vietnam Era draftees and criminals of varying degrees) led to a climate of family disfunction. In "garrison towns"- those communities surrounding active military installations- the Sex Industry thrived. Prostitutes (many barely legal... if at all) and "strip bars" were rampant. HBO and cable TV- characterized from the beginning for its sexual displays- was introduced widespread. Children in these communities- and elsewhere- grew up with the spectacle and came to accept it. (After all, their elders obviously did!) Therefore, they themselves became easy recruits into perversity at ever earlier ages. In Europe, always "decades ahead" of America, such things had already become accepted and legalized across the board. But America was catching up.

These things I personally witnessed and, sorrowfully, had to deal with. My casual adolescent acceptance of these things in magazines and films started to dim in the face of the blatant social consequences. I saw those pathetic girls selling themselves in bars and streetcorners. Most of them were no more than jaded children; recruited into this terrible trade by way of self-degradation and through the equally terrible sourge of drug addiction. Only a few years before, they had been laughing, playing schoolkids; dear to the hearts of their parents... and none of them dreaming of their sordid destiny. Others had not even been allowed a happy childhood. Broken and abusive homes, often the result of stress, alcohol, drugs and other factors, had likewise become common. So was the occasion of military children running around in gangs, after dark and utterly unsupervised.

These events were just a reflection of the decline of America's societal values overall. Nor was this the extent of it. With this (often unconscious) acceptance of degradation came the rise of crimes against and by children. Sexual perversion is not an inherent behavior, despite what its adherents openly proclaim. Nor is it divorced from child depredation. They are, in fact, part and parcel. They are also learned behaviors that are the antithesis of not only natural human inclinations, but of the traditional institutions of civilization that define them. In any healthy society, children are the cornerstone of its existance. Through the course of my life, I saw our culture erode from that normal state into what it has become.

A key change in my attitude came in 1977 when, for the first time, I knowingly came face to face with a child molester.

The location was the Fort Bragg (North Carolina) Correctional Facility... i.e. the "stockade". Having been seconded to them due to a personnel shortage, I found myself in charge of Medical Hold on the night shift. That, by the way, was where incoming prisoners were searched, processed and hold until it was established into what prisoner category they would be assigned. The area was barred off from the Control Area and adjacent to the loading dock for quick access. It contained an office, a shower and about a dozen maximum security style cells. It was inhabited by several prisoners and by one M.P.- myself.

It was an early summer night and in the middle of the week. Nothing was usually to expected at such a time. I had no real duties except to make a regular visual check of the few prisoners. Therefore, sitting back behind my desk and reading a science fiction novel to pass the time, I was surprised when a guard rattled the bars and alerted me to an incoming prisoner. Somewhat disgruntled, I marked my place in the book, placed it in a drawer and retrieved a folder with the necessary inprocessing forms.

Three men then entered. Two were detailed guards from a service unit. Between them was an elderly NCO. All were dressed in the solid "OD green" fatigue uniform of the time. The younger guards were nervous looking. But not their prisoner. He merely looked down at me; rheumy eyed and with a slight, resigned look of amusement on his face. It was a look that I have seen on TV and in newspapers many times since. I had never witnessed it in person... until then.

This is the point. I instinctively KNEW- even before the confinement orders hit my desk- what I was dealing with. This man had been caught red-handed in sexual lewdity upon the person of a young child.

It is said that, even among the most hardened criminals in a prison, there is an instinctive loathing for those who have preyed on children. It's true, by the way. It's why those predators are generally segregated from the main prisoner population... ironically, for their own protection. Many such have fallen prey themselves to impromptu "justice" from other convicts during a recess or in a shower stall. Nor do I doubt that, on more than one occasion, a guard looked the other way. Our revulsion to these creatures is no less. Only our sworn duty restrains us.

My duty restrained me on that occasion! But my repulsion was profound... and has lingered on ever since.

After having processed in this monster, I asked for- and quickly received- a personal relief. I needed it! My shift supervisor understood. When a man feels as unclean as I did, the only remedy is a little fresh air. I went out into the receiving area and took an extended smoke break.

I still vividly recall that night of a third of a century past. It was a warm summer night. The breeze was enough to sway the omnipresent pine trees of the Carolinian tidewater. It must have been a full moon as well, because the clouds were a bright white against a dead-black sky as they marched swiftly across it. I could smell the tang of pine resin. Yet, my thoughts barely flitted across my surroundings. I was too busily absorbed in sorting out what I instinctively realized to be a turning point in my life. Lighting up a cigarette, I walked back and forth before the loading dock.

This is what I considered. The man I had just encountered was a Sergeant First Class- a senior NCO. (He was likely as old then as I am now.) He had been apprehended with his child victim while in uniform; with name, rank and unit insignia therefore displayed. That's how confident he had been!

Even then, I knew that child molesters do not just happen spontaneously in mid-life. They usually result from a combination of influences- not all of which are necessarily traumatic- that somehow twist a soul into evil. This state usually manifests itself around puberty and quickly develops through adolescence. Perverts are made, not born. But they are made in early life. And, once made- and if unnoticed early on and uncorrected- they come to dominate the person's life through that key factor in their makeup: Obsession. Then, they seek a source to satisfy their unnatural cravings. This old sergeant had found his source.

The average tour of duty in the Army is three years. A hardship tour is 1 1/2 years. A combat tour: One. Then you must add temporary duties, schools & training and other factors. You move around in the service. You meet many people in the small world of the Army. And you meet their children. This man had served at least 20 years, owing to his age and rank. (Likely, that service time was quite a bit more.) In that time, he had likely resided in more than 10 posts.

How many children had he come in contact with during that time? How many families had this gentle-appearing man engratiated himself to... only to betray that trust in the most despicable manner possible? For children, through a combination of fear and shame, seldom report their desecration; even to their parents. How many broken little lives had this creature from Hell left behind in his evil journey through life?

I must have smoked down half a pack as I dealt with these thoughts. Upon returning to my post, I continued to do so.

I never did finish that damned book!

These monsters are all around us. That needs to be recognized by all decent adults. They have proliferated steadily as pornography has and as the standards of a Christian based society have eroded in turn. They are being bred like litters of rats in a decaying building. But, quite often, they wear the guise of normalcy. There is no DNA test that can discern them, no physical characteristic that one can point to. The only thing that distinguishes them is aberrant behavior in late childhood... when it is still correctable and before they learn to hide their traits. After that, it most often takes their being caught in the supreme act of depravity. The price of this is still more destroyed children.

PTO: Pedophile Theater of Operations. It's not regional. It's a world war in itself. And until it's recognized as such- and fought as such- no child anywhere is safe. Adults exist for the sake of our children. They are our first and overwhelmingly prevalent duty in life. No distraction or false, insipid ideology must stand between us and that duty.

Steven Mark Pilling

The Lockerbie Aftermath

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:05:08 GMT

Dear Readers: Shortly after the release of Abdel Baset al-Megradi, the convicted mass murderer responsible for the destruction of an American jetliner over Scotland, I composed this letter and forwarded it to the local British consul. I'd like to share it with you and encourage your comments. As the time draws near for the visit of to this country of Mohammar Khaddafi, dictator of Libya and alleged mastermind of the atrocity, to address the United Nations, I think it becomes more relevant than ever.

August 25, 2009

To: British Consul, Houston TX

Sir:

Speaking as an American of British descent and a long time Houston resident, I'm forced to express my absolute dismay and anger with the recent actions of the Scottish Nationalist government- under First Minister Salmond- in regard to the Lockerbie mass murderer and the release of the perpetrator.

Recent statements by Mr. Salmond and his Justice Secretary indicate that not only are they unremorseful for the pain they have inflicted on so many families by their actions- not to mention the moral outrage of it and the obvious encouragement it has afforded to other Islamic terrorists- but that their actions will be without consequence. I can assure them they are wrong. It is also apparent to me that the England and Scotland that I visited- and enjoyed- in 1975 are countries that no longer exist. The apparent collusion in this incident of Prime Minister Brown's government only exacerbates this saddening conclusion.

Nothing could drive the point home more firmly than the sight- on the tarmac at Benghazi- of a Scottish flag being waved. Scotland's shame was being celebrated in the homeland of its most infamous murderer. And now, because of that, the Cross of Saint Andrew will hereafter equate the white flag of abject surrender.

This from a nation that once proudly styled itself "Scotland the Brave".

This whole incident will require much rethinking among Americans as to the status that Scotland- and Britain as a whole- once held in our eyes. In times past, such an outrage might well have led to a severing of diplomatic ties. I cannot say it shouldn't now. When a person- or a nation- lends comfort and support to the murderous enemies of another, then that person or nation becomes one WITH that enemy. Again; that blue and white flag in Libya speaks volumes.

Already, this incident has led to a movement in this country for economic reprisals against your's. I can only agree with the sentiments. Her Majesty's government might well note that this comes about in the midst of turbulent political debates over the future course of OUR nation. That Americans can turn from that to give this their attention is something that your government should not take lightly. And, when President Khaddafi comes to America to address the UN- and resides at a house in New Jersey, a state where 33 of the Lockerbie victims' families live- the outcry will increase.*

We already knew the character of this evil dictator. He has aided in the murders of Americans- and Britons- all over the world... including killings on the soil of both our countries. Today, he celebrates his triumph. Tomorrow, he will plot death once again. But now he will do so in the knowledge that Britain is a de facto ally in his plan of dominance. Scotland has surrendered to him. England, by association, has done likewise. America has not. Nor will we, as Americans, tolerate false friends who collaborate with our committed adversaries.

Today, I join the boycott movement. I will also advocate for the closure of British consulates within this country's borders and the curtailing of mercantile and cultural ties. It can only be assumed that your consulates will provide haven to criminals, that trading privileges will lend them strength and that the culture that once distinguished Britain among nations is depraved and corrupt. The actions of corrupt officials here in America have endangered us enough- a fact that has already mobilized our citizenry in recent days. A foreign threat from within cannot be tolerated.

I write these words in anger, naturally enough. But I also write them in great sorrow. For a century now, the Grand Alliance between the United States and the Empire/Commonwealth stood as the bulwark of freedom and Christian civilization. It was first formed by Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George against militant reactionism. It was tempered into steel by Roosevelt and Churchill against fascism. It faced down communism under Reagan and Thatcher, prevailing by sheer force of resolve and the Alliance's reput in history. That it has failed now, in the face of gangs of Islamic criminals, is a sorrowful ending to its story.

It's also the end chapter in the story of Britain and Europe. By the end of this century, none of it will exist. Your's and the other nations of the so-called Continent will be owned, overrun and subdued by those who hate you and your heritage. And they will destroy you. This is the historic price of cowardice and decadency. It is the story of the fall of all once-great nations and civilizations from time immemorial.

Do not ask us to share it. Europe and Britain can doom themselves if they will. We will preserve what's our's... even if we have to stand alone against a barbarized world. If this is the world that Britain would have, then kindly say so openly. Then leave us alone in peace. We'll be busy enough in another generation when your surviving grandchildren- wearing turbans and brandishing the Koran- come for us.

Sincerely yours;

Steven Mark Pilling

*Since this writing, the people of New Jersey have prevailed on their own corrupt government to disallow Khaddafi's residing in their state during his visit.

"Hounddog's" Evil Litter

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:43:01 GMT

Dear Readers: I wrote this a month ago. But, what with my "hideous" work schedule during that month, I failed to post it. In fact, I lost it under my desk papers! Now, with its rediscovery, I present it. Note, though, that I wrote this prior to my receipt of the actual script to "The Runaways" and my realization of just how truly and historically profane this movie is. SMP

In regard to the motion picture "The Runaways" (in production) and "Orphan" (currently in theaters), this must be noted. Both owe their existance more-or-less directly to two despicable facets that have become established in the American cinema. I refer to the Hounddog Legacy (the cinematic precedent of extreme child exploitation that that movie established) and the Fanning Factor (using "name" child actors to forward perversity to the developmental detriment of both themselves, their young collegues and their juvenile audience... for their adult handlers' profit).

Let's take an overview of both films, here.

"The Runaways", as I've previously mentioned, has a strong obsession with underage sex, drugs and violence. They'll likely try to moderate that in the final cut. Maybe! But the corruptive core concepts of the story, as in "Hounddog", will necessarily prevail. Given that this is based on a well-documented true-to-life story, it can hardly be otherwise... short of massive fictionaliziation.

That latter is not likely. One has only to note the play already given the Joan Jett/Cherie Currie lesbian encounter. Added to this is the backstage wildness that the original Runaways were known for, the personal contacts of Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning with their real life counterparts and, in particular, the fact that Joan Jett herself is an executive producer. This all virtually ordains that the movie will be very nasty indeed.

As I've said, those pictures I've witnessed of the two girls made up for their roles is saddening. Especially so in Dakota's case, as her aspect is that of a painted prostitute from Sunset Boulevard. Kristen's "dykish" appearance is likewise disturbing. Those photos taken of them driving away from a Hollywood nightclub while in costume- with Kristen's wild look and Dakota pathetically hiding her whorish guise from the cameras- should haunt every parent in America.

These are teenage girls! Think Veronica and Betty- after having sold their souls to the Devil!- and you get the idea. Kristen, while a legal adult, is only 19. Dakota- a child that IS- still looks nearly as preadolescent as she did in "Hounddog", despite her handlers' attempts to present her as otherwise. And these two girls- one a hot teen idol and the other still remembered from her former life as a beloved child star- are spearheading a movie whose very nature may (again) redefine Hollywood obscenity.

I'll repeat what I said earlier of "The Runaways". Given the timeline- and if the plot was appropriately fictionalized- it could well be entitled "Hounddog II: Whatever Happened To Lewellen?". I stand by that, still. Nor do I doubt that the Fanning Entourage, true to their established natures, were thinking along those lines. "Hounddog's" fallout is something they're still dealing with. If "The Runaways"- mainly through Stewart's starpower- becomes a success, then it might help ameliorate that old "demon" that haunts them and, thus, revive Dakota's profitablility. So, too, can the continuance of the "providential" Stewart/Fanning relationship that they helped to craft.

If it fails, though, the Fannings can likely kiss their elder daughter's career good-bye. Then, I guess, it'll fall on Sister Elle to keep them in gravy. I predicted THAT two years ago. This is an invariable consequence of an established, exploitive mindset. Nor is that, itself, unprecedented among Hollywood stage parents. It's just that none before had ever dared take it to such profane lengths. This is the Fanning Factor.

Now... I have yet to see "Orphan" directly. It's not necessary, of course. The truth is that there are many other (and better!) ways to evaluate the true worth of a film beyond witnessing its released version. However, the Hollywood pundits inevitably scream "Have you seen it?!" at moral critics. They will do this in the full knowledge that the inside story (and where kids are concerned) is much more important... and that all its aspects will seldom be revealed in the edited release. That tactic was widely employed in their defense of "Hounddog". Count on it to be utilized again.

But from what I've already learned- even from my first, cursory researches into "Orphan"- it is evident that this is the "Hounddog" pattern repeating. As with Dakota Fanning in 2006, Isabelle Fuhrman is being set up by her own handlers, at age 12, for darksome, adultized roles aimed at depraved or clueless audiences. Again like that earlier film, "Orphan" centers around the character of a massively disturbed child. The emphasis in this film is more on psychosis, violence and child criminality then it it is on little girl sexuality. That latter factor, though, is not absent.

Isabelle's handlers learned enough from "Hounddog" so as not to base her character primarily on the sexual aspect... as was done with both her and Dakota back then. (Let's not forget that "Hounddog" was her first film and her participation there in a nude, sexual scene with Dakota and a 10 year old boy!) No doubt those adults hope, thereby, to avoid the emotional impact that the predecessor film's relentless pornography had on parents and child advocates. But those other facets of "Orphan" that do exist are also devastating to the hearts and minds of the children who enact them or come to witness them. They are also just as criminal.

Here are the prime factors, then. Isabelle, unlike Dakota, cut her acting teeth on child pornography. After something like "Hounddog", she likely needed less "softening up" for compliance in "Orphan" than did her young luminary in her first film obscenity. Dakota, after all, had a previous history of family films- as Isabelle has not. Nor would there have been any real problems with parental co-operation. The very fact that the Fuhrmans agreed to what they had previously pretty well defines THEIR characters.

Then there's the Southern Connection. Joy Purvis, then the head of Atlanta-based Hot Shot Kids, was Isabelle's agent in 2006. She was also that of Cody Hanford, the 10 year old boy I previously mentioned. And she was the first agent of Dakota Fanning. Thus, she was ultimately responsible for the presence of ALL THREE KIDS in "Hounddog". And now, as with Dakota, Isabelle has been passed off by Purvis to her Hollywood connection, the infamous Cindy Osbrink.

Same agents. Same kind of parents. Similar exploitive roles. Pornification established as the norm in kids' minds. The Southern Connection. And the same old excuses revisited: Children as "little adults" and as "sexual beings".

"Orphan" would probably have never been made had the "Hounddog" filmmakers, agents and stage parents been prosecuted as they should have been. Certainly, they broke enough child protective laws... on paper! Since they weren't, though, the door that was opened in 2006 (using Dakota's little blonde head as the battering ram!) remained open. It still is. And through it, any number of other children will likely pass... with Hell lying just beyond.

What I long feared would happen is coming to pass. In both "The Runaways" and "Orphan" I see it. Each, I maintain, is a direct consequence of the "Hounddog" event. Legitimization has been established in the cinematic desecration of childhood. Until it's firmly disestablished- by upholding the existing laws and through the alertness of decent citizens and parents- it can only continue. Nor will it be confined to the perverse machinations of the Purvis/Osbrink/Fanning axis of evil. They are merely the vanguards. Worse will follow in their wake.

Steven Mark Pilling

Afternote: Since I wrote this, I have become further enlightened into a number of upcoming film projects. A 12 year old child named Chloe Moretz is to star in a grossly violent film called "Kick Ass" where she plays a trained child assassin. 11 year old Ryan Simpkins has just completed her 7th straight R-rated film, the latest in a chain that began- concurrent with "Hounddog"- in 2006. Current top child actress Abigail Breslin will be adultized profanely in a movie called "Rape: A Love Story". And... Abby's closest rival, AnnaSophia Robb, already a R-rated veteran, will have her supreme "moment of truth" at 15 in a film called "Dear Eleanor". Anna, it should be noted, has just come off a well-recieved Disney movie. She was also (allegedly) approached in 2005 for the lead role in "Hounddog". It's a pity that her parents didn't retain their moral perspective beyond that. Still; the door that Dakota opened yawned wide.

Another Letter To "O.O."

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:20:20 GMT

Dear Readers:

In response to my column of July 13, poster "O.O." wrote an interesting essay which tended to revisit a number of points I had often dealt with in the earlier days of my advocacy. While I appropriately respect her opinions, it's sometimes discouraging when I see how some of Hollywood's false precepts are still casually accepted by many via the popular culture. Indeed, when I was younger, I tended to do so myself. It was only when something as blatant and despicable as the "Hounddog" event occurred- and I had been thereby spurred to do much research and had made many contacts with established and knowledgeable people- that a different picture emerged. It's a matter of gaining perspective in an issue whose perpetrators discourage perspective... and do so expertly.

I don't claim omniscent powers of insight, here. I'm still very much a Hollywood outsider... though I have learned much in the past 3 1/2 years. But I do know that common, traditional values- especially those in regard to children- are not only good and viable, but utterly necessary to any nation that calls itself Christian and civilized.

Just this day, I was debating (via my Facebook account) with some of my valued correspondents over the future courses of action necessary for the enhanced protection of children in all aspects. Naturally, given our backgrounds, the majority of it dealt with kids in the increasingly abusive entertainment field. There are many challenges ahead and many sorrowful occurrances pending. In the following letter, I mention some of them. But it is also valuable, every once in a while, to revisit some of the basic tenets whose manifest truth put my feet on the road I've followed for so long. Therefore, such messages as "O.O.'s" are worthy. Any advocate must always be ready to re-examine his information, his principles and his motives. My apologies to O.O. for my tardiness in replying.

Dear O.O.:

Much depends on how we define "art" and "creativity". I understand art to be any sensory representation intended to appeal to the higher senses and aspirations of Mankind. Trash (to include pornography) is thereby the antithesis of art, as it reaches out to the baser instincts of its audience, often through the degradation of others. Positive vs. negative... as different as day and night. It's also why pornographers- early on with the legalization of their trade- successfully sought to sequester the term "art" and redefine it in their image. Into something squalid and destructive... just as they did with the word "love". Insofar as "creativity" is concerned, it is indeed possible to be so in both a positive and negative context. Unfortunately, the latter predominates in the modern culture. This, coupled with anti-art, has brought about the corruption and endangerment of two generations of children thus far.

It should be noted that the MPAA ratings system is, frankly, a sham. When instituted in 1966 by the late Jack Valenti, its stated purpose was to replace the faltering National Board of Review, which had provided the moral compass for Hollywood productions for one third of a century. That period was also Hollywood's golden age. MPAA proclaimed that Hollywood would now regulate itself without the input of any Christian clergy. Thus, secular immorality took hold. So did Hollywood politics, coupled with the Warren Court's extension of First Amendment protection to pornography. The result was a revolution on par with the advent of the "talkies" in 1929. The entire face of film industry turned from art to relentless depravity... and as far as the latter could be pushed.

Many veteran insiders, who were there during the change, will acknowledge this in private. And many more will tell you that studio politics and under-the-table finagling- more than content itself- will determine what rating a picture gets. It may involve a few cosmetic changes, but the concepts behind the plot of a vile movie remain vile notwithstanding. The key factor is marketing and the intended target audience. This is what the Business is all about and the rating system exists to further it.

And the PG13 rating is the biggest sham of them all. It is often the depository of depraved films whose makers seek to lure in a wider audience under false colors. A few snips, a little money changing hands and, perhaps, a few actors in the cast who are better known for their cleaner roles in the past... this is often the birth of a PG13 movie. The others usually come about with the addition of one or two putrid scenes to an otherwise acceptable family film in order to broaden the audience in the other direction!

I don't trust any of the Academy's ratings, though. A far better way of pre-evaluating films is to find honest reviewers who are not sleazy muckrakers or shallow Hollywood mouthpieces and are unafraid to make moral judgements on a picture's message and content. There are remarkably few of these! Treasure them when you find them. Also: Know the directors, producers, screenwriters and studios before you do the actors. If you know their "track records", you are better able to make an accurate assessment as to a movie's worth. Big name actors are essentially sucker-bait!

I must take issue with your assumption that such films as "Hounddog" are in any way beneficial to child sexual abuse victims. Certainly, THEY don't see it that way. Nor should that be surprising. I've come in contact with a number of them, both personally and online, since that movie's story took my attention. With one sole exception, they were all horrified and outraged that their nightmare was cheaply exploited in such a manner. Especially disturbing to them was the casting of a endearing child star as a promiscuous 9 year old... who is molested after dancing nude before two boys in a barn. In the real world, little girls have rarely provoked their own defilement in such a fashion. They were innocents attacked by evil incarnate. Dakota Fanning's performance- its inherent obscenity aside- reduced them (and all children) to the status of sex objects who desire their own desecration.

They understood this. So did many other adults and children; a number of whom had once been Dakota's supporters. (I'm one of those myself.) So did any number of full time child advocates. They also knew what I quickly came to understand: The deliberate falsity of the filmmakers' claims that such movies as their's would "raise awareness of the issue". This now-common phrase is Hollywood's version of Justice Warren's ill-defined term of "redeeming social value" as a justification for pornography. Both are utilized by pornographers to protect themselves... like a perverse version of Miranda. And it's done in the name of Art.

As I said three years ago; "Depravity does not cure depravity. If it did, we'd all be living in Utopia right now. Depravity- unchecked- only leads to more and greater depravity." History has proved me right time and again.

Another common misconception spurred by Hollywood is that of the nature of children themselves. Children are not Little Adults. Dakota Fanning, now 15, is still a child; physically, mentally and emotionally. And children's grasp of right and wrong, good and evil and fact vs. fantasy is inherently not on par with adults'. Certainly, the parameters are broad for a number of reasons, but biological maturity remains a key element. To call a child "mature for his/her age" (as Dakota has been, relentlessly, by her publicists!) is to make a relative comparison for the purpose of a false impression. Children can ACT more mature than other children... especially if they are actors by profession and have had little contact with anyone but adults. In fact, this is a common situation with child actors! But they can't BE more mature in truth. The biological realities are what they are. It's the prime reason why children have parents. Their parents may, indeed, lack maturity themselves. But children, by definition, can't.

That's why another myth about kids like Dakota is often that they pick their own roles and manage their own careers. First of all, they have no such legal discretion. A child actor may be granted leeway in such matters by his or her parents, but how much (if any) is strictly up to those parents in the final analysis. For it is they, not the child, who signs the contract. In practice, stage parents tend to be very dominating. This can be good or bad, depending on whether those parents are motivated by what's good for their child AS a growing child... or by what financial rewards that child can engender. If it's the latter- as it plainly is in the Fannings' case- then that child is in grave danger. Any number of former child stars will bear witness to this stark truth.

In regard to Christoph Sanders, I ask this. What is the character of a young man who, for any reason, would agree to enact the violent and graphic molestation of a 12 year old girl? What kind of person would seek to advance himself by vileness with ANY child (much less the most loved little girl in the country!) by means that would extend those images to others on into the indefinite future? Isn't this, indeed, indicative of one who is without shame or remorse? Isn't it also indicative of a man who holds the sanctity of childhood in, shall we say, low esteem? And isn't this all, furthermore, characteristic of one who could easily take that "baby step" that separates such a vile enactment from the real thing?

This I maintain. Any person on that set- actors, filmmakers, technicians... or parents- who didn't at least come away from the set of "Hounddog" with the deepest sense of shame is unfit to walk free among us. Some technicians, indeed, DID walk off the set and reported what had happened. God bless them, for their warning- done at imminent risk to their jobs- allowed people time to mobilize against the threat that the movie posed. But what does this likewise say about the parents, agents and director who conditioned three children for those depraved roles? And what does it say for the adult actors- Sanders, David Morse, Robin Wright and Piper Laurie- who actively abetted, by direct action, such a perversity? And none of those people ever uttered a word of regret. The opposite, if anything. Such people belong in prison as few others can.

As for "The Runaways". Yes, it IS that bad. Like I said, even I was taken aback by the extent of its perversity beginning with the very first scene... with Dakota in it. I haven't quoted a scene yet only because they are so filthy that I'd have to censor large portions of any given one. I have never allowed profanity on my website and will not break my own rule. Children visit here and, besides, the topics I deal with can be troubling enough... as is this one.

Again I stress this: I am not exaggerating. Nor do I make a practice of altering facts to fit preconceived notions, as some have before accused me. Like any blogger (or journalist) of any repute, I isolate the facts and attempt to put them together into a coherent picture of truth. In this case, the words of the screenwriter speak clearly on their own. No interpretation is necessary. This is, indeed, one of the most evil and obscene stories that I have ever encountered. And it is, even now, being enacted with a 15 year old girl in a central role. That it's based on a true story is no excuse for its making.

Movies have, as you say, come a long way in their technological methods. In content, however, they have devolved overall into a state of iniquity that staggers the imagination. One has only to look at a NetFlix dispensor or the wall of a Blockbuster outlet to reach that immutable conclusion. And even that doesn't tell the full story of what what done in their making, how the concepts were forwarded or numerous other aspects. It's true, yes, that only so much can be done to prevent adults from obscenely degrading themselves in such productions. But when they do so with children- or target child audiences with their vileness- they must be opposed to the utmost. Those children are everyone's children and it is the responsibility of all adults to protect their blessed childhood from attack.

Please don't interpret any of my words here as a indictment of yourself, O.O. I'm sure you're a fine, well-meaning person. But this is a tough issue that needs to be faced in a like manner. It's also one that may define our society through future ages. It may well decide whether our society even survives. No civilization that holds its own children in contempt is fit to. Let that not be America's epitaph.

Best wishes to you;

Steven Mark Pilling

It's Been A Tough Summer!

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:48:29 GMT

Dear Readers... and particularly to O.O., Smartfiles and Amber.

This has been the craziest summer I've had since I've come online! Every time I turn around, something nutty and time consuming besides has happened to foil my multitude of hoped-for projects and columns. What's worse, I've been thwarted in even answering my posters in a timely manner. As my regular readers will attest, I've made it a point of pride to do so. Yet, O.O. sent me a meaningful message 2-3 weeks ago, Smartfiles has sent me three posts and Amber chimed in several days ago as well... and I've answered none as yet!

I just want everyone to know that I haven't abandoned or lost interest in this site. Also: I'm deeply embarrassed by my failure to respond as I would have wished. I'm posting this because, once again, I'm being prevented from answering today. I'll make every attempt to correct this tomorrow.

Also: I plan to start a series of columns called "My Summer Letters". Much of my time has been taken up by necessary correspondence with valued online associates, their dealing with many of the themes I normally present on this site. Naturally, they will be presented so as to not reveal my sources' names or locales. MUCH has been happening in the political and social arenas. I'm still scrambling to stay abreast.

Additionally: As I've alluded, I've come into possession of the script to "The Runaways". Due to the sheer, breathtaking obscenity of what I've read, I have to predict that an event worthy of "Hounddog" is taking place. That's an issue I plan to delve into at the first opportunity.

I hope my readers have had a more relaxing summer than I have! August has definitely been the worst month of it for me.

God bless all.

Steven Mark Pilling

A Note To My Valued Viewers

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:58:44 GMT

Dear Readers:

Before continuing on to the body of my remarks. I'd like to- again- offer an apology for my lack of activity on this site during the summer months. I only wish I could say it was the result of a long, pleasant vacation. No such luck!

In fact, I have been receiving such a volume of reports and correspondences from so many established and credible sources- many of truly breathtaking (and heartbreaking) events in the social and political realms- that I'm still trying to correlate it all into column form. Many of those letters, along with my replies, are of such significance as to lead me to wonder if- small time blogger that I am- I might be out of my league in trying to present it all!

Suffice it to say that, in the theme of Hollywood and child exploitation, some events of saddening (and, in at least one case, staggering) proportions have come into my hands. And, yes, these stories (unsurprisingly) involve those three facets that so often lie at the heart of such cases: The Osbrink Connection, the Hounddog Legacy and the Fanning Factor. Before I present the details, however, I must thoroughly edit my words in order to protect the identity of my sources. Please do not consider this as an attempt at "dramaticization" for self-promotion purposes. I have merely (and, I guess, inevitably) made contacts over the course of my years-long advocacy. At times, those contacts deliver so much information and of such detail- and all at once!- that great care must be taken in shifting the interconnecting data and forming a clear picture of events. This is one such time.

Also: Back in June, I forwarded my intention to present a series of articles entitled "Exploited Child Actor Of the Month". This created some debate among some of my close associates, some of whom feared that this might draw harsh attention on the children themselves, rather than (as I intended) on those who have exploited them and of the larger consequences of that exploitation. My idea was to begin with the story of Isabelle Fuhrman, as her pathetic film "Orphan" is presently in theaters. (And yes, "Orphan" is one of those cases I'm still dealing with from my contacts.) However, until I can reach a consensus among my associates- many of whom are far more prominent, have accomplished much more and have been active a lot longer in this field than I have- I feel constrained to defer these columns for the present. It would be foolish and arrogant of me not to do so.

On the political side, the growing phenomena of the Tea Party Movement, the "mob" challenges to liberal Congressmen over the nationalized health care concept and the dramatic shift in political demographics that have resulted from them are the subject of intense debate... as some of you may have noticed! The related side issues are too numerous to mention here. I think I can state with assurance that the dramatic surge that brought the American Left into power on the national scene is, in turn, being faced with an equally dramatic turn in the opposite direction.

In the course of my 58 years of life, I have witnessed many powerful, unexpected and history altering events. I cannot recall, however, the political pendulum swinging back and forth to such a degree and over such a short period of time as I have seen over the past year. Many of us, I'm sure, are both transfixed and confounded by the scope and rapidity of these events and are trying to understand what it all means and where we, as a nation, are truly headed.

I offer here a few words of advice.

America is a nation almost unique to history, as it was founded- not on a basis of racial or cultural homogeneity- but on principles. Those principles, themselves, are derived from the Christian faith- as many of America's first settlers came here to avoid religious persecution. They also brought with them the important concept of free citizens, managing their own affairs, unburdened by a powerful and despotic central government and living in voluntary accord with their neighbors in the spirit of those Christian standards of conduct. Those principles are well documented in the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the "several states", the Federalist Papers, the correspondences and speeches of the Founders, numerous documents and declarations of later patriots and statesmen... and the Holy Bible itself.

We have not always lived up to the letter and spirit of this great heritage, as we'll all agree. In fact, we have occasionally fallen grievously short... and the result was disastrous. Our present day may prove yet another such instance, as the confrontation between two irreconcilable philosophies- progressive and traditionalist- seems to be coming to a final showdown. But what's important is that those values upon which America was founded live on. They must not- EVER- be allowed to be anulled or desecrated by those who reject their very premise. They- and the nation that was founded upon them- must be preserved... for they are the light and hope of the world.

If we, the heirs of those great men before us and the beneficiaries of the millions of fighting men who have striven to preserve the concept of America, remain true to our faith and values, then America cannot fail. Let us draw hope from that. That... and from our faith in the Divine Providence who's Hand has guided and protected us in days past.

On that note, let me wish to all who read this, regardless of situation, persuasion or nationality, my best wishes, my thanks for your readership and my wish that God preserve you and your children for the mighty challenges ahead.

Steven Mark Pilling

P.S. Let Americans not forget that August 15th is VJ Day. Remember- then- to thank a World War II veteran for our freedom as a nation... and promise him that all he fought for will be defended- vigorously- by his posterity. We owe them that. We owe it to OUR children, as well.