Barbra Streisand on Michael Jackson’s pedophilic sexual needs and DNA

Barbra Streisand on Michael Jackson.jpg

A CBS News report by Sophie Lewis titled Barbra Streisand says Michael Jackson’s accusers were “thrilled to be there” (March 23, 2019) appeals to the UK’s The Times article “Barbra Streisand at 76: dog cloning, art collecting and being a grandma but that is a pay to read service.


A CBS News report by Sophie Lewis titled Barbra Streisand says Michael Jackson’s accusers were “thrilled to be there” (March 23, 2019) appeals to the UK’s The Times article “Barbra Streisand at 76: dog cloning, art collecting and being a grandma but that is a pay to read service.

That she refers to dog cloning is a clue that she is deep into well, something.

The report notes, “Barbra Streisand is facing criticism for comments she made on Michael Jackson’s accusers…Streisand shared her thoughts on ‘Leaving Neverland,’ a documentary that tells the stories of two men who allege Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.”

Step one, “Streisand said she believes Jackson’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck. ‘Oh absolutely’…‘That was too painful.’” Although the context of “That” is not very clear.

So, she “absolutely” believes that Jackson sexually abused at least these two when they were children—that is crystal clear.

But note her point of view on the sexual abuse of children, “She also said, of Jackson, ‘His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,’ she said.”

Barbra Streisand on Michael Jackson.jpg

Let us pause. She he sexually abused them but hey, such were his sexual needs whether they came from nature or nurture, his “childhood” or “DNA.” Now, you may have thought how ol’ granny Streisand would like it if her grandkids were sexually abused: but I am afraid that she would not mind at all.
And with this, we get a window into the utterly depraved elite mindset—she is deep into well, something.

Pedophilia and pederasty acceptance will be one of the new civil rights and this has been brewing underground for a long time. Streisand’s statements are merely the tip of a toxic iceberg.

Her premise is that if he felt a need, whether it derived from his childhood or DNA, that such a need must be acted upon. Yet, there is a difference between a need, an impulse, and an action.

Moreover, she stated, “You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard them say, they were thrilled to be there.”
Sure, you can say sexually abused or molested but hey, if children liked it then it is a-okay. Well, there are obviously a lot of issues here including that of course, the children (and their parents) would be thrilled to be in the presence of, enjoying the (supposed) friendship of, getting the attention of Michael Jackson who was then the most famous pop-star in the world.
But were they thrilled to be there being sexually abused/molested? This is a jump in illogic. And yet, it touches upon a very troubling issue which is that such children and even adult victims of rape often feel conflict if they actually “enjoyed” what was done to them. Even if the children thrilled to be there being sexually abused/molested, that would not make it right.

Barbra Streisand also stated that now, “They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.” Well, she does not know what has happened to them—emotionally, psychologically and spiritually—between then and now nor what continues happening to them even though they both married and they both have children. And even if they made it through without deep emotional, psychological and spiritual issue, that does not make is right.
So, grandma Streisand premise seems to be that as long as you did not die from it then, it is fine with her.

She states, “I feel bad for the children. I feel bad for him.” Sure, we can all “feel bad” for a twister pervert but she is going beyond that and excusing him to the point that she states, “I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him.” But what indication is there that their parents not only knew about it but “allow their children to” and note how she put it, “sleep with him”? And even if they did “allow their children to sleep with him” that does not make it right.

“Leaving Neverland” director Dan Reed tweeted “Is pedophilia tolerated in parts of the entertainment industry?” the answer to which, as per a lot of evidence, is “YES!!!!” which is part of why there is no #meetoo movement for children.

Yet, after giving the likes of Michael Jackson an out, as it were, she stated, “To be crystal clear, there is no situation or circumstance where it is OK for the innocence of children to be taken advantage of by anyone…The single most important role of being a parent is to protect their children” and she also stated, “It’s clear that the parents of the two young men were also victimized and seduced by fame and fantasy.”

This seems merely the stuff of dialectics. She was crystal clear in making one point and then just as clear in making the exact opposite (PR based?) point. In this way, she gets to have her perverse cake and eat it too (and not get fat from it).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.