PATRIOT NEWS: Steven Spielberg is a Jesuit Satanist agent who works closely with various military terrorist groups and the modern-day Sandrehin and the child-molesting sex trafficking network comprised of NAMBLA, the Swiss/American/Israeli/British CIA and the Vatican. He created at least one film in which people actually were killed in filming, and dozens of films that encourage child rape and incest. The following are #1 – videos showing just a tiny portion of Spielberg’s felony sex propaganda crimes; #2 – reprinted excerpts from articles by Adam Parfrey and Crispin Glover (George McFly in Back to the Future); #3 – a short description of Spielberg’s work on the translation to television of Stephen King’s Child Molestation/Snuff Film Novel “IT” and #4 – various related articles that reveal Spielberg’s unbreakable ties to the Satanic Knights of Malta and Global CIA Finders Child Trafficking Rings run by the VATICAN, WASHINGTON D.C. and the CITY OF LONDON CORPORATIONS.


Proof That Steven Spielberg is a Child Molester (Part One)

In this clip, Spielberg’s MK Ultra brainwashed twin kids point to their penis, then to their mouth as they watch MK Ultra brainwashed Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Shue. Mirror this and share on your own channel. This is going right back up on other accounts as soon as Spielberg takes it down again.

Proof That Steven Spielberg is a Child Molester (Part Two)

Spielberg’s child sex slave actors fondle a statue’s carefully-crafted penis while making sexual remarks about it.

Proof That Steven Spielberg is a Child Molester (Part Three)

Jesuit/Vatican deviant Steven Spielberg told his child sex slaves to say “penis breath” to each other in this horrific clip. Spielberg actually pulled out this clip from E.T. as the questions about his bizarre pedophilia connections in every single one of his movies began to mount and mount over the years. Today he practically leads a recluse’s life to avoid the spotlight, allowing others to direct all his films and quickly cutting out his pedophile directors as soon as they are positively identified by the public, like J.J. Murphy, “Super 8” film employee.
Steamshovel Press


Taken, Indeed

Steamshovel debris: The following essay by Adam Parfrey originally appeared in Jim Goad’s renown Answer Me magazine and is anthologized in the 1996 Answer Me book anthology. It appeared shortly after the release of Steven Spielberg’s movie, “Jurassic Park,” and primarily deals with possible themes of pedophilia in his movie, “Hook.”

Steamshovel presents it here as backgrounder to the recent Sci-Fi channel TV mini-series, “Taken,” produced in part by Spielberg.

Ostensibly about alien abductions, the recent series actually focused more on the relationship of the abduction phenom to various children–the series tracks stories over generations, providing all of it protagonists the opportunity to be quite young–and sadistic adults involved with UFO cover up. (Thanks to Greg Bishop for finding a copy of the essay to reproduce here.)

Pederastic Park?
by Adam Parfrey

A vicious sort of urban legend began to flourish about the time of Richard Gere’s alleged alliance with rectal rodents. Its subject was Steven Spielberg, and the gossip had to do with the director’s overweening fascination with child actors. Mindful that hearsay is sometimes false, we are withholding the delicious details. But the fact that this rumor exists at all confirms an underlying unease over the presumably innocent entertainments created by Hollywood’s oldest Wunderkind.

Spielberg’s latest theme park-style extravaganza, “Jurassic Park,” isn’t as explicitly swishy as his failed “Hook,” but it reveals components of the auteur’s personality that have parents wondering about the movie’s appropriateness for children.

“King King,” “The Lost World,” and “Godzilla,” three monster epics cannibalized by “Jurassic Park,” achieved their thrills without resorting to on-screen menacing of tots. Indeed, only on milk cartons can we find children so physically raped as the celluloid juveniles of “Jurassic Park.” The film’s sadistic tone is established early on, when a fat child challenges the paleontological theories of protagonist Sam Neill. Neill turns on the boy, and in low, menacing tones, he demonstrates to the child how a prehistoric nasty would mangle and devour him. Adding a distinctly Peter Kurtenish frisson, Neill slashes near the child’s belly and crotch with a large, sharp claw.
Perhaps among all our “childlike” wonderment with the subject of dinosaurs, we forget that child abusers commonly invoke the threat of large beasts to frighten and silence their victims. Is the director conjuring the trappings of childhood obsessions only to wield them for a darker purpose?

Although overtly sadistic, “Jurassic Park” was reined in by its obeisance to special effects; it revealed few of the excesses of “Hook,” in which Spielberg’s psychodramatic inclinations were allowed to roam free.

“Hook” is the culmination of over a decade of false starts in bringing J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan to the screen. At first, Spielberg was reportedly considering a live-action redo of the Disney animated feature, starring Michael Jackson as the perpetual pre-pube. But the auteur of suburban childhoos wasn’t satisfied with a simple remake.

The high-concept Hollywood sound bite, “What if Peter Pan grew up?” not only indulged Spielberg’s predilections, it provided the film’s investors with a tinkingly trendy phrase redolent with the “recovery” metaphysics that have become the ethos for Hollywood’s haut monde, the same haut monde who have lately forsworn the continual cocaine-and-Quaalude concatenations so relentlessly documented by former Spielberg producer Julia Phillips in her autobitchography, You’ll Never Eat Lunch In This Town Again.

The recovery movement is led in part by ex-drunk John Bradshaw, who smilingly encourages his readers to throw off the ruinous shackles of adulthood in order to “liberate the inner child.” It comes as little surprise that Steven Spielberg takes part in Bradshaw’s therapies, which include workshops where “lullaby music is played and participants cradle and stroke one another.”

Asking Steven Spielberg to liberate his inner child would be akin to asking a serial murderer to actualize his anger. By his own admission, Stevie has experienced little in the way of adulthood outside of his overprotective upbringing and the adulatory, toadying fantasy land of Hollywood. Bradshaw’s “inner child” therapy is a mere baby-step away from the Diaper Pail Fraternity, a Sausalito-based group for grown men who revert to incontinent fantasy, where surrogate mommies exclaim and coo as they wipe the kinky kid-fetishists’ dirty behinds.

Spielberg’s is redolent not only of the inner-child component of recovery, but also its darker aspect: child molestation. Bradshaw seeks to place blame for psychological malaise on a dimly remembered past in which some form of traumatic abuse took place. The less the so-called abuse is remembered, the more convinced are Bradshawian therapists that it actually occurred. At the time that “Hook” went into production, all the radio and television talk shows fixated upon child abuse in a catharsis of mass scapegoating. Suddenly, millions of Americans were convinced that they had been molested by their nuclear family or ritually abused by Satanists.

On the crest of the child-abuse wave, Spielberg’s Peter Pan project was transformed into Hook, whose ad campaign abandoned the traditional flying fairies in lieu of a stark visual of the prosthetic steel claw gleaming against a black background. The gruesome hieroglyphic was a perfect mnemonic device (see Hook, think Hook) ”but more importantly, it transferred any possible pedophilic overtones from Spielberg himself (the auteur hero) to the classically pederastic fantasy figure of Captain Hook, the fiend who spirits children away to a Neverland where Cabbage Patch foundlings enliven the sodomitical lives of Village People pirates.

Here, Spielberg could be evading responsibility for his alleged tendencies by projecting them onto his villain, a strategy employed by Hitchcock and other directors renowned for their sadistic inclinations.

Peter Pan had, of course, become such a dusty chestnut that almost no one would object to its pedophilic content.

Who would remember that its author, Sir James Barrie, was a full-blown boy fancier who never consummated his marriage to actress Mary Ansell and carried on a passionate “friendship” with the sons of Sylvia and Arthur Llewelyn Davies?

Even today, no one can comfortably explain why Barrie insisted on naming his eternal child “Pan,” after the goatish satyr of mythology.

In a tradition begun by Sir Barrie, most stage productions of Peter Pan cast a boyish woman in the lead role, a transvestite tradition Spielberg may well have paid homage to by casting Glenn Close as the bearded pirate named “Gutless.”

Pederastic organizations such as NAMBLA insist that children are wise, sexual creatures who should be given the opportunity to be fondled, sucked, and anally penetrated by middle-aged men.

The NAMBLA Bulletin has a special column called “Boys in the Media,” tracking the doings of such Hollywood chickens as Macaulay Culkin, known affectionately in the Bulletin as “Mac.” The self-described “Ganymedian” L. Martin, who write the “Boys in the Media” column, spoke by phone about Stephen Spielberg and Hook.

“Spielberg is known for his interest in young boys, certainly,” said Martin. “A lot of the members have been talking about Hook, telling me how much they enjoyed it.”

NAMBLA spokesman Renato Corazza refused to confirm or deny Spielberg’s possible membership in the Man/Boy Love Association: “We don’t divule our membership rolls.”

And is it merely accidental that another pederastic magazine goes by the acronym P.A.N. (Paedo Alert News)?

Spielberg’s costume designer Anthony Powell endows Hook’s “Lost Boys” with a cute Benetton-meets-Oliver Twist look tailor-made for the chicken-hawk sensibility. Dance of the Warriors, a futuristic fantasy about a warrior cult of young boys who fight right-wing Christians for the privilege of having sex with aging boy-lovers, sports on its cover a salt-and-pepper boy couple who almost precisely mirror two of Spielberg’s Lost Boys. The book appeared in the pedophilia sections of gay bookstores just at the time that Hook was going into pre-production.

Just who are Spielberg’s Lost Boys? Walter Keane-style big-eyed orphans? Lord of the Flies in Suburbialand?

Hook’s smarmy press kit tries to make each personality distinct. There’s Rufio (“the proud leader of the Lost Boys, whose determined jousting with Peter for the honor of guiding the troupe of ruffians leads to a new understanding between the two rivals in Neverland”); Ace (“the Lost Boy with all the angles figured out for his peers”); Thudbutt (“whose imposing size belies his gentle disposition among the Lost Boys–but don’t get him angry!”); No Nap (“a street urchin complete with suspenders, knockers, a newsboys cap…and a heart of roughened gold”); Latchboy (“the curly-top redhead who always finds himself in the thick of any mischief contrived by the band of tarnished angels”); Pockets (“one of the smallest Losy Boys, who has a particular soft spot for helping Peter get his wings in Neverland”); and Too Small (“the tiniest Lost Boy in stature but one of the feistiest in nature, who wears his pajamas through thick and thin”).

Hook’s emotional highlight, strangely absent from the shooting script’s first revised draft, is the touchy-feely communion of the adult Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. We’re treated to prolonged takes of the tykes touching and caressing Robin Williams’s face and body.

When the Lost Boys smear war paint on Wiliams’s naked torso, the idyll is reminiscent of a certain gay body-painting video advertised in The Advocate “that focuses on creative eroticism, that expands and extends the beauty of foreplay.”

There’s not room enough to detail the pedophilic implications of other Spielberg productions: the man/boy relationship in “Empire of the Sun,” which begins with John Malkovich’s comment about young Christian Bale’s “sweet mouth” and reaches its emotional climax when Malkovich directs the chicken to move his cot next to his; the child-alien/human ectodermal interactions in Close Encounters; and the sanitized incest theme of Back To The Future.

However, it was E.T., Spielberg’s most exalted triumph, which seems to clothe boy-love fantasy in New Age vestments.

Spielberg uses every trick in the director’s chapbook to induce us to love a wrinkled, potbellied cosmic interloper that hides in boys’ closets and communicates with a glowing, phallic finger.



It was young Henry Thomas’s taunt to his twelve-year-old celluloid brother–“penis breath”–that had Spielberg conjure, if only for a disturbing instant, the image of a bald-faced lad with a cock in his mouth.

Although the “negligent” participants got off with nary a knuckle-rap, we must not forget that Spielberg also produced the actual snuff film “Twilight Zone,” in which Vic Morrow and two young children were beheaded during filming.

Perhaps the most perverse aspect of Steven Spielberg’s work is its obsessive posture of sentimental innocence.

Psychologists trained in the vocabulary of sex criminals often note the cloak of goo-goos and sugar frosting as the subconscious moral gymnastics of repression and guilt transference.

But now that “Jurassic Park” has more openly revealed the overtly sadistic aspect of Steven Spielberg’s curious desires, there is only one more place to go for this self-styled avatar of contemporary myth. His movie, “Schindler’s List,” was filmed in Auschwitz.









Is it true that in his waning years, Orson Welles asked Steven Spielberg for a small amount of money with which he could make a final film? Is it true Steven Spielberg refused? Is it true that Steven Spielberg bought a sled used in Citizen Kane for an extremely large sum of money?

Do Steven Spielberg’s passions burn? Do passions burn in the man now imprisoned who wished to anally rape Steven Spielberg?

Do you believe Steven Spielberg is an ideal guide and influence for our culture? Do Steven Spielberg’s films question our culture? What do Steven Spielberg’s films question? Does Steven Spielberg focus much of his fantasy life on young people? Did he portray children wallowing in sewers filled with fecal matter in Schindler’s List? Did he use children to fingerpaint an adult in Hook? Does he collect the illustrations of Norman Rockwell, such as the one showing a young boy in his underwear examined by a doctor? Are the inclinations of Steven Spielberg above suspicion by the media-fed culture? Was Steven Spielberg very friendly with Michael Jackson? Wasn’t Michael Jackson supposed to play Peter Pan in Steven Spielberg’s version of the story? Now that Michael Jackson is no onger held in favor by the mass media, does Spielberg associate with him? Do Michael Jackson and Steven Spielberg share similar opinions about the sexuality of young boys?

Did Joseph Goebbels popularize certain ideals to the mass culture? Does Steven Spielberg attempt to do the same thing? Is celebrity more special than actual truth in art?

Would the cultural mainstream ever silence or suppress Steven Spielberg? Has the United States government given the immensley weathly Steven Spielberg millions of dollars to fund a media project that reflects his religious heritage, and his cultural beliefs? Does The Talmud speak of the superiority of the Jews and the inferiority of other cultures and beliefs? Does Steven Spielberg reflect this religious imperative? Is Steve Spielberg neurotic? Is this belief hidden and suppressed?

Is it considered “career suicide” to question Steven Spielberg if one is involved in the entertainment business? If one is not involved in the entertainment business is it considered a social suicide to question Steven Spielberg? If these things are so, what does that point to? Does this mean freedom of _expression is actually curtailed in our culture by certain social pressures? Is calling someone a “fascist” in American culture today the counterpart to saying someone was a “communist” during the Joseph McCarthy era of the 1950s?

Dose our culture congratulate itself for taking interest in the lack of original ideas personified by the name of Steven Spielberg? Do his films take chances or take risks in order to amplify, change or challenge the cultural though process? Dose Steven Spielberg take risks, or does he simulate the idea of taking risks? What risk was involved in making Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List, or adopting a black child? Was there any risk at all? Would Steven Spielberg have adopted that same child in the deep South of the 1950s where there would have been risk of being called a “nigger lover”? Were the adoption of a black child and the subject matter of his movies actually business decisions for which he knew he would be congratulated?

When Steven Spielberg clutched his Academy Award for Schindler’s List, saying it’s for the “six million,” was he speaking of a quantity of people killed, or the quantity of dollars poured into his bank account?

Did Steven Spielberg truly help the culture understand Stanley Kubrick’s ideas at an Academy Awards eulogy? Or did he accuse Kurbrick’s films of being “hopeful” to make them seem as if they sell the same ideas as Steven Spielberg’s movies? Was A Clockwork Orange about hope? Was Barry Lyndon about hope? Was Dr. Strangelove about hope? Was Lolita about hope? Was Full Metal Jacket about hope? Was The Killing about hope?

Was Steven Spielberg’s company sued by an African-American woman who claimed that Amistad was based on her writing? Was this African-American woman suddenly happy with Steven Spielberg after he deposited a lot of money into her bank account?

Did DreamWorks, the megacorporate entity co-owned by Steven Spielberg, consider paving over the last remaining wetland in Southern California to create a studio? Does Steven Spielberg feel comfortable emasculating the natural? Is climbing the Alps, or is riding the Matterhorn rollercoaster in Disneyland, more attractive to Steven Spielberg? Is the theme park mentality of our culture, which is made to feel “right” and “moral” by the propagandizing movies of Steven Spielberg, helping to destroy individual thought processes and emasculate what remains of the earth?

Is it possible that the Columbine shootings would have not occurred if Steven Spielberg had never wafted his putrid stench upon our culture, a culture he helped homogenize and propagandize?

PATRIOT NEWS NOTE: Photo above is a still from child-molester/devil-worshipper/murderer Stephen King’s “IT” book adaptation by…you guessed-it, Steven Spielberg. In the book, the adults “defeat” the child-molesting alien clown by tricking the children into performing a mass sexual molestation rape/orgy with them. If you don’t believe us, read the comments on this by King’s own deluded readers below:



More information on felon Steven Spielberg and his work for the Swiss CIA’s Finders Child Kidnapping Rings: