(((Netflix))) blasted for “Cuties” child porn — a Rothschild approves while decent gentiles like Tulsi Gabbard speak out against the heinous film

“Cuties”

Marc Randolph
Randolph in April 2017
Born	Marc Bernays Randolph April 29, 1958 (age 62) Chappaqua, New York, U.S.
Alma mater	Hamilton College
Occupation	Co-founder and former CEO of Netflix
Spouse(s)	Lorraine Kiernan Randolph
Children	3
Family	Bernays family

. 

As per Wikipedia:

.

Marc Bernays Randolph (born April 29, 1958) is an American tech entrepreneur, advisor, speaker and environmental advocate.^] He is the co-founder and first CEO of Netflix.

.

Jews like Rothschild, from across the (((Diaspora))), have rallied together to defend the film while both conservatives and the few sane people remaining on the Left have condemned it…..

.

Tulsi Gabbard, until recently a Hawaii Congresswoman and a 2020 presidential candidate whom the jews blocked from most of the Democrat debates, sure thought “Cuties” was outrageous.

.

.

It should come as no surprise to anyone,  since Tulsi, in spite of the fact she represented the Democrat Party in Congress, was raised by largely conservative parents.

Gabbard’s father, in fact, as a politician himself, led the charge in Hawaii to see same-sex marriage legislation contested.

Although this is the issue Jewish progressives attacked her on, their real issue with the former Army officer (Gabbard served in both Iraq and Afghanistan) is her stance on American foreign policy — opposition to Jew-promoted foreign wars and our politicians being beholden to Israeli interests.

Imagine, Jews caring about Israel before domestic policy?

That she has an issue with the sexualisation of children is but a side issue to the cabal of Wein-/Epstein.

But I digress back to “Cuties.”

Make no mistake, the film former Congresswoman Gabbard and other sane people are taking issue with is quite shocking.

The “Cuties” production team does make the case that Western sexualisaton of children is problematic from time to time. However, the nefarious characters involved in the production of the film -exploited the child actors in the film and glorified sex with children — as shocking as it sounds and as ill as I feel penning that line.

Instead of demonising the pedophiles and demonstrating the pain the girls felt after their being victimised by said acts, it in fact sensationalizes the ILLEGAL sexual acts themselves.

For example, there are numerous scenes where the camera is directly pointed at the nether regions of the pre-pubescent actresses. The camera work is in fact so distressing it was hard for me to watch the scenes.

There were close-ups of crotches, shots capturing young girls grinding and gyrating to black music, that were so sexual it made me ill to the pit of my stomach.

There was no sad or dark music, nothing that told me that the filmmakers in fact wanted us to feel ill by the scenes.

Titillation was the goal.

Therefore, the argument that it was important to show the actual acts to drive home a supposedly anti-pedophilic theme is nonsensical.

Would it be fine to produce a film about animal cruelty where the films producers dismembered animals on camera?  Where the cameras themselves were literally focused on the knives and bloodletting, smiles of the abusers instead of the pain the torture was responsible for?

I think not.

Would it be fine to create a film that criticises Islamism by glorifying it? That lionises extremism? That sensationalizes the actual killing of infidels? That in fact has people dying on camera as this film has actual girls being sexually exploited on film?

Let’s make no mistake, “Cuties” is a sexually explicit film that glorifies pedophilia and actively promotes the sexualisation of children, children the director exploits DIRECTLY on camera.

Instead of showing how evil and vile pedophilia is by perhaps showing us the pain the poor girls experience at the hands of their adult victimizers, conveying the destruction sexual exploitation leaves in its wake,  “Cuties” in essence humanises the sexual crime by showing both the girls themselves as well as the pedos ENJOYING and relishing the carnage.

And although this might be an unpopular opinion.

I actually dont blame the director, Maïmouna Doucouré, who genuinely – from all that Ive read about her reaction to the controversy – seems to think that her film actually HELPS children.

My guess is that she has been duped into thinking this is the case by the evil maggots that edited, shot, produced, funded and promoted her poisonous film. She probably genuinely thinks her film will have a positive impact on society.  Just look a her. Does she look like a sex fiend like Weinstein? Do you genuinely think she wants to molest children herself?

She has probably been used as a black Muslim face in order to deflect the sort of attention the film has gotten by the actual villains behind it.

And without sounding too crass, I also expect Ms Doucure has seen a few (((casting couches))) in her time and has about as much control of her work as you and I have over our Facebook and YouTube accoutns!

As a WN we KNOW these people are used by our REAL enemy. They have no idea they are, but they are. Just as the rapper is used to destroy the black family, Ms Doucouré, has been taken advantage of to sell pedophilia disguised as art and social commentary. 

After seeing an interview with her, and looking into her eyes as she spoke, I can tell you this woman genuinely has NO CLUE what she is involved in.

Bottom line:

“Cuties”shows pedophilia in a positive light while engaging in immoral, reprehensible and criminal activity regardless of the original intent of the black director. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Avoid this film like you’d avoid a Gay “bookshop” in downtown Austin, Texas. It’s sheer poison.

Franςois d’Arouet