Technology is being used to record what the powerful people of the world are saying, so the rest of us can find out what they really think, and plan accordingly. One of the largest corporations that caters to parents of young children is the Disney corporation. After we see some anti-child comments by Disney executives, we’ll look at some sex crimes committed by Disney employees against children.

Here’s a story from Legal Insurrection.

Disney corporate president Karey Burke says:

“I’m here as a mother of two queer children, actually, one transgender child, and one pansexual child and — and also as a leader. And that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks, in open forums, and through emails and phone conversations. And I feel a responsibility to speak, not just for myself, but for them. To all of us, we had a — we had an open forum last week at 20th, where, again, the home of really incredible, groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years, where one of our execs stood up and said, ‘You know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.’ And I went, ‘What? That can’t be true!’ And I — and I — and I realized, ‘Oh, it actually is true.’ We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and — and — and yet, we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just — just get to be characters and — and not have to be about gay stories. And so that’s been very eye-opening for me.”

Watch:

Disney executive producer Latoya Raveneau says:

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to like, my like, not-at-all secret gay agenda… I felt like… maybe it was that way in the past, but I guess, like, something must have happened… They’re turning it around, and then all that momentum that I felt, that sense of ‘I don’t have to be afraid, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background…wherever I could, I was basically adding queerness to the show, if you see anything queer in the show, ‘The Proud Family,’ nobody would stop me and nobody was trying to stop me.”

Watch:

I found a very interesting article over at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, that talks about some of the crimes committed by Disney employees with children.

Excerpt:

But behind its meticulously curated self-image, Disney has had a long-standing problem with child predators gaining employment within the company and exploiting minors. In 2014, reporters at CNN published a bombshell six-month investigation that discovered at least 35 Disney employees had been arrested for sex crimes against children, attempting to meet minors for sex, and possession of child pornography over the previous eight years.

Disney didn’t learn anything from the 2014 CNN story:

Even after the CNN report, Disney has seen a steady stream of employees caught in the dragnet for child predators. In 2019, police arrested a Disney cruise “youth host” for molesting a ten-year-old boy in the ship’s “Oceaneer Kids Lab” and, later that year, arrested another Disney cruise employee for raping a girl “over 100 times” at her home starting when she was 11 years old. (The charges regarding the molestation of the ten-year-old boy were later dropped when the parents did not want to bring the child in for testimony at trial.) Since then, three Disney employees have been arrested for soliciting sex with minors, two have been arrested on 40 total counts of child pornography, and four more were arrested earlier this month in a sting operation targeting “human trafficking, child predators, and prostitution.”

Disney’s attitude to sex crimes with children is to cover them up, and water down the laws against sex crimes:

In 2014, after a crewmember on the Disney Dream cruise ship was caught on security cameras molesting an 11-year-old girl, Disney authorities failed to report the crime until after the ship had left port, which allowed the man to evade arrest. When one security officer protested, Disney authorities allegedly told her to “keep your mouth shut” about the crime. Moreover, according to advocates associated with the International Cruise Victims organization, Disney’s trade-association lobbyists had worked to oppose and then water down federal legislation that would have required stringent safety and reporting protocols for sexual abuse on cruise ships.

So what should we think of these “compassionate” Disney people, who want to promote a sexual agenda to young children, on the grounds of “inclusion” and “tolerance”? Well, what I think is that their “don’t judge” religion really means “don’t protect the weak from predators”. And that’s not surprising – secular leftism has always championed the rights of the strong over the weak. Survival of the fittest – that’s their religion. They don’t judge the predators because they want to be liked by the predators.

I think a lot of young people give up on design in the universe because they 1) don’t know the evidence for design and 2) don’t want to be considered to be stupid when confronted with intelligent atheists. For those people, it can be useful to point them to smart people who have worked through the evidence for design, and concluded that the universe (and life) is the product of design.

Here’s the story from Evolution News:

Earlier this week, John West reported on a major new exhibition on faith and science in Washington, DC, tackling the question of whether the Bible impeded or inspired the rise of modern science. (Judging from the historical record, “inspired” is clearly the correct answer.) In the article, he mentioned another Nobel Prize-winning scientist who endorsed the idea of an intelligent design behind the universe, using that phrase explicitly. This was news to me. He is physicist Arthur Holly Compton — see the slide above, which Dr. West shared from the exhibition.

Compton’s remark was, “The chance of a world such as ours occurring without intelligent design becomes more and more remote as we learn of its wonders.” Interesting. He said that in 1940.

[…]Compton joins fellow Nobel Prize-winning physicists Charles Townes (UC Berkeley) and Brian Josephson (Cambridge University) who have likewise come out for ID as a legitimate interpretation of the scientific evidence. (Townes passed away in 2015.) To those names you could add two more, Sir John B. Gurdon (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) and Gerhard Ertl (Nobel Prize in Chemistry) who, along with Dr. Josephson, endorsed the Discovery Institute Press book by chemist and ID proponent Marcos Eberlin, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose (2019).

In case you’re wondering what intelligent design is, this simple article is pretty good:

Intelligent design — often called “ID” — is a scientific theory which holds that some features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that intelligent design can be inferred by finding in nature the type of information and complexity which in our experience arises from an intelligent cause.

Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution contend that the information in life arose via blind, mechanistic processes that show no scientific evidence of guidance by intelligent design. ID proponents contend that the information in life does not appear to have an unguided origin, but arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using the standard methods of science. But ID theorists say that when we use the scientific method to explore nature, the evidence points away from blind material causes, and reveals intelligent design.

The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes.  This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

This short video is a good introduction for those who prefer to watch rather than read:

By the way, about that conversation with Josephson. I was walking in the hall with him, and discussing intelligent design. He said “it’s easy to explain complexes sequences that conform to a pattern. I could write a program that would generate the first 100 prime numbers in 3 lines of code.” I told him that I was a software engineer, and that I was familiar with what it takes to “write a simple program”. I said that he would need computer hardware, firmware, an operating system, a compiler, and something to run the program. “And that’s where you’re smuggling in your specified complexity”, I said. I don’t remember what he said, but I’m delighted that he came around eventually.