Dark Pedo Youtube Channel Exposed


Jun 17, 2017

check out the article. disturbing, but its important to be aware of it.

this ties in with VCs recent article about pedo youtube channels. maybe this tosh guy is a VC reader.

good news:
"As a result of the videos, Maryland residents Mike and Heather Martin, temporarily had their children taken away by child protective services as a result of the videos."


Jun 17, 2017
the youtube site is still up, but the videos are removed and only the parents apology is left.

ill stick the whole thing on here, just in case someone wants to bury the story.

Comedian Exposes DARK p***phile Youtube Channel With Over 12 Billion Views
Daniel Tosh from Tosh.O may have uncovered child abuse
US TV series, Tosh.O, hosted by comedian Daniel Tosh, is known for commentaries on viral video clips and celebrities, but this time, the show unwittingly exposed a p***phile YouTube channel depicting controversial videos of children. As a result of the videos, Maryland residents Mike and Heather Martin, temporarily had their children taken away by child protective services as a result of the videos. The Youtube channel called DaddyOFive has any eye-watering 12 billion views and has ignited huge debate as to whether it was actually created for Pedophiles to 'shop for children'. Daniel Tosh, who exposed the videos, said there was something very dark going on. “I’ll level with you. I may have stumbled upon something dark here,” Tosh explained “Anyone watching these videos needs to put some pants on and turn themselves into the FBI.” SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO


The Youtube channel called DaddyOFive has any eye-watering 12 billion views

Freethought Project reports: Home movies have been around as long as video cameras. But with the rise of child pornography, the proliferation of pedophiles, and the accompanying technology, a renewed vigilance to protect the innocence of our nation’s youth is needed. Not only did Tosh expose this darkness, but in a recent publication by Vigilant Citizen, a disturbing discovery was made about online videos, principally located on Youtube, which depict real children in bizarre and unnatural situations. Here’s what they found. Children with access to Youtube can be tricked into watching videos featuring their favorite Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse. Here’s Mickey getting his ears cut off by scissors.

But what might be the most disturbing of the videos we uncovered was revealed to us, ironically, by Daniel Tosh. The outspoken comedian and purveyor of controversial videos and off-color topics, was seemingly disturbed by what he learned. “I’ll level with you. I may have stumbled upon something dark here,” Tosh said. “Anyone watching these videos needs to put some pants on and turn themselves into the FBI.” He told his viewers that the children, who star in a Youtube channel called Seven Super Girls, may be unaware of how they’re being marketed, and to which specific audience. Tosh staged a “To Catch a Predator” style of spoof on the type of viewers who were watching the seven girls’ videos. You guessed it….pedophiles. Unfortunately, their videos are extremely popular and serve as an indictment to the world’s pedophilic attractions. The channel has nearly 3,000 videos uploaded to its channel. But this is no ordinary children’s show, and without a doubt, 1980’s era censors would have driven themselves mad in an attempt to shut down the perversion. At first glance, the Seven Super Girls Youtube homepage, arguably, looks like one’s favorite porn site. Each under-18 girl has her own subchannel. To the unwitting, however, the site may look like girls dressed like girls, engaging in activities which girls enjoy; going to camp, hanging with friends by the pool, and playing dress up.

to a p***phile, the site is a smorgasbord of smut, carefully crafted to serve as eye candy for adults

But to a p***phile, the site is a smorgasbord of smut, carefully crafted to serve as eye candy for adults and teenagers to indulge in their child-sex fantasies. After we clicked on the entire list of videos and selected to sort by most popular, it became clear to us at The Free Thought Project, the videos are in no way innocent. The first video titled “Lucy’s Morning Routine” shows a young girl licking a cream pie. The video has 138 million views, yet never rises above the level of a bad Pee Wee Herman episode. Why so many views? Tosh believes it’s simply a visual feast for pedophiles. The second video is labeled “Escaping from Your Bed In The Morning!!” and features a young child duct taped t a bed. What might be an interesting video to children, is certainly a child bondage video for predators, who gorge on the fantasies elicited from the viewing. Our investigation into the Seven Super Girls channel uncovered an incredibly disturbing phenomenon. The girls are all selected as stars of the channel by uploading an audition video to SAKs channels, pronounced “Sax” and eerily close to “Sex” — we believe on purpose. You decide for yourself. When you click on the link to the Youtube video, the official SAKs channels are listed in the comments section. The video even warns to be wary of fake Seven Super Girls channels. Do you have any idea why? Because pedophiles set up their own fake audition sites so that they can have access to the personal information of children and teens they would choose to exploit. There’s no way uploading a video of one’s child to any of the SAKs sites is an exercise in good parenting. 1947 The Diary of a Young Girl (better known as The Diary of Anne Frank) is published. Two cryptographers working for the United States National Security Agency left for vacation to Mexico, and from there defected to the Soviet Union. It’s highly probable that the children, teens, and adults who are creating and uploading the videos have no idea, or don’t care, that pedophiles are gorging on their videos. All of which makes the seriousness of the proliferation and views of the videos that much more disturbing. How can parents, teens, and children resist the temptation to be internet famous? After all, if the Jenner girls are all doing it, why shouldn’t they? That’s a fair question. The Seven Super Girls channel has nearly 7 million subscribers, and their videos have been viewed 7.4 billion times. The information under the “about” tab shows a business email for the site to be enquiries@sevensupergirls.com. Notice the word “enquiries” is written in British English not the American English spelling of “Inquiries”. The SAKs channels, as they are known, were started in 2008 by seven families in Britain who, in the early days of YouTube, wanted to make sure their children were making family-appropriate content. The only remaining parent of that original partnership is Ian Rylett, who is currently in charge of the SAKs operation. It’s safe to say, the family-appropriate content has taken a backseat to p***phile appealing content. Other than the New York Times article, little is known about Mr. Rylett who runs the SAKs corporation which employs a staff of six. Mr. Rylett, who lives in Leeds, said producing the channels was essentially his full-time job. He and a team of six others take care of copyright issues, create sponsorship deals, come up with weekly themes, monitor the channels and arrange meet and greets. The tickets for a 1,000-seat event that is coming up in Orlando, Fla., are selling for $30 each. We want our readers to think for themselves. If you’re a parent or are thinking about being one, and want to protect your children from pedophiles, by all means, visit the Seven Super Girls Youtube channel. Decide for yourself if Mr. Rylett and his team are doing a good job of monitoring the content of the children’s videos to prevent the site from becoming food for famished pedophiles.


Mar 13, 2017
I heard about DaddyOFive... a Youtuber named Philip DeFranco exposed DaddyOFive and got a bunch of different Youtubers talking about what was going on in the videos. Then that led to two of the kids, Emma and Cody getting taken away from their dad and step mom and they went back to their real mom I think. The story is that their dad (DaddyOFive) basically stole them from their mom and started raising them with his new wife. But he still has his other children...


Dec 11, 2017

Creator of Netflix Kids Show Wrote Blog about Stalking and Lusting Over 14-Year-Old Boy
This is another instance of the entertainment industry harboring predators.

Julia Vickerman, creator of the Netflix’s children’s cartoon show Twelve Forever, once posted a strange blog that detailed her following and fawning over a 14-year-old boy she saw at a fair.

Original screenshots of the since-deleted post on Tumblr, which describes her exploits at the fair alongside an individual named Tony, can be seen here:

p***philia warning /
so. the creator of twelve forever has a post (that’s still up as of now) basically detailing her infatuation + attempts to get closer with a random 14 year old boy. this was made in 2010, when she was around 25. and she tagged it with ‘p***philia’. pic.twitter.com/xH31eqyLlJ
“Oh but Tumblr, GUESS who was in line to go on the Sizzler with us?” Vickerman asked on her blog page. “This beautiful androgynous long black-haired emo 14-year-old boy wearing tight black pants and a black t-shirt emblazoned with the name of some band that probably sucks and his lip-injected fake-red-haired mother who looked like a washed up rockstar.”​

Her tale got even more twisted and bizarre from there.

“Tony was nice enough to follow this poor boy around the small carnival with me as I tried to sneak photos (none of which turned out well). I knew that my heart would be forever in turmoil unless I at least TRIED to talk to him. Oh GOD if only his mom hadn’t been there,” she wrote.

Vickerman eventually approached the mother and the boy, giving them some tickets to use at the fair as an excuse to approach the child she was drooling over.

“I watched my muse push his dyed black hair behind his ear, exposing EPIC eyebrows, apple still pressed to his lips, say “thank you” and smile,” she wrote, before concluding that this “was the best day ever” and posting the hashtag #p***phile.

She has posted similarly creepy tweets as well:

Turns out the Netflix show #twelveforever creator Julia Vickerman – in addition to writing a blog post about stalking a 14 year old boy – has been lusting after young boys for years. Imagine what she hasn't tweeted. Why is Netflix so pro-pedo? pic.twitter.com/bhGHiqDEbc
— Rocket Scientist Devon Stack (@EvilHillaryPics) September 2, 2019
Twelve Forever debuted on Netflix earlier this year. The show is described as follows by Variety, which noted that Vickerman has a long history of working on animated shows for children.

The series centers on 12-year-old Reggie, whose desire to remain a child is so powerful it creates a fantasy world in which she never has to grow up. She’s joined by her friends Todd and Esther, who visit this amazing world to live out their superhero fantasies and escape the responsibilities of impending adulthood…
“I am beyond excited that ‘Twelve Forever’ has found a home on Netflix,” said Vickerman, best known for her work on “The Powerpuff Girls,” “Clarence” and “Yo Gabba Gabba.” “This is a project that is very close to my heart and we’re so grateful for the opportunity to share Reggie’s world with everyone. Puny and the Cartel have assembled an incredible team of writers and artists and we can’t wait to bring this series to life.”​
Although Vickerman is rumored to have been fired from her own show, she still regularly posts clips from the program on her Twitter pagewhere she lists herself as the show’s “Supervising Director.”

The entertainment industry is swimming with convicted and allegedpredators, as the content being regularly consumed by children is being crafted by these types of people in a frightening number of instances.


Dec 11, 2017

Normalized p***philia Is Likely Coming, Says Writer
Monday, 02 September 2019

Written by Selwyn Duke

“Are There Enough Morally Sound Liberals Left to Keep p***philia Illegal?” asked American Thinker’s Christopher Skeet last week. Many would quip, and others would lament, that the phrase “morally sound liberals” is becoming an oxymoron. Others would scoff at Skeet’s assertion: that with the sexual devolution’s perfect track record of collapsing one sexual standard after another, the “next logical target, currently being implemented, is the sexualization of children.”

It may seem crazy. But remember, if you’d have told people in the 1950s that, in a few generations, homosexuality would largely be accepted, same-sex “marriage” would have government sanction, and the “transgender” agenda would be in place — and opposing these things would bring scorn — they’d have called you a nut.

Moreover, is telling little Johnny he can choose to have sex with an adult really crazier than telling him he can choose to “become a girl”? Both are psychologically, morally, and spiritually damaging, but while changing sex is impossible, having sex certainly is not.

Skeet points out that that during a 2018 New York Times interview, unrepentant sexual transgressor Jeffrey Epstein “described the criminalization of sex with teenage girls as a ‘cultural aberration.’ He justified this by noting that such behavior has been acceptable at different times in history and by pointing out that homosexuality is still considered a crime punishable by death in some countries.”

“His claim was that societal sexual mores are completely subjective,” Skeet continued, “differing from one cultural value system to the next, and constantly modifying within each value system” (more on this later).

(Note: Skeet apparently uses the term “p***philia,” which technically refers to sexual relations with prepubescent children, to describe all such activity with underage youth. I’ll henceforth use it as well while also citing other kinds of adult-minor sexual relations, as this is a transitional stage to p***philia.)

Speaking of homosexuality, many know the path it took to legitimization. For example, it probably wouldn’t surprise you to learn that the Los Angeles Times ran a 1983 article bearing the following title and subtitle: “Many researchers taking a different view of homosexuality.”

“Homosexuality once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”

(Though it’s the mistake of biological determinism, the rhetorically effective pitch is that if it’s inborn, how can it be wrong?)

What may surprise you is that, while the Times likely did run such articles, the above isn’t from ’83, but 2013.

And I inserted in the sentences the word “homosexuality” — in place of “p***philia.”

They originally read: “Many researchers taking a different view of p***philia.”

“p***philia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”

Would you bet that a legitimization process that began as homosexuality’s did won’t end as homosexuality’s did?

Skeet won’t take that bet. He writes that from “cheap and widely available contraception to prostitution to abortion on demand to premarital sex to civil unions to [undefining] marriage and to human-animal marriage (you read that right: it’s no longer just for Sudanese progressives), the assertion ... that the government should … stay out of the bedroom” has carried the day. In fact, Skeet points out that “conservatives” have a perfect record in these battles — of losing them.

He also mentions that the sexualization of grade- and middle-school children in government schools is rampant, amounts to “state-sanctioned child abuse,” is “deliberately underreported and, if it is exposed (here,here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)” is not effectively countered.

There is in additon, Skeet laments, how the barely dressed “slut look” is now the norm among middle-school girls — with their parents’ tacit consent. (As a woman close to me once put it, “Forty years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.”)

Then there are the tender-aged boys — as young as eight — who dress as drag queens, perform in homosexual bars, are serving as sex objects, and are promoted by media. This is the sanctioning of pedophilic imagery end behavior (video below).

Next, as I wrote in 2013 in “The Slippery Slope to p***philia“:

There has long been the “Pedobear” Internet meme, a little comedic cartoon character Web users often associate with news stories about p***philia. And remember what happens when people start to laugh at something? Then there was the “Chester the Molester” cartoon character in Hustler magazine (the creator of which, Dwaine Tinsley, was once convicted of molesting his 13-year-old daughter). Far more significant than a porno-mag offering, however, was a film made in 1993 called For a Lost Soldier. Based on a true story, the movie somewhat vividly portrays a WWII-era sexual relationship between a Canadian soldier and a 13-year-old European boy. What I’d like to focus on here, however, is a New York Times review of the film written by someone named Stephen Holden. Entitled “Treating a Delicate Story of a Soldier and a Boy Tenderly,” you’d think the paper was reviewing Romeo and Juliet.

There’s also the 2001 film L.I.E., which, as Ed Gonzalez wrote at SlantMagazine.com, “suggests that a pederast could actually have something useful [to] contribute to society.” As you can see, this is nothing new.

Thus is Skeet not very optimistic. “If we are going to beat these public school-running animals back under the rocks from whence they came,” he warns, “we need to recognize the depressing fact that, in today’s world, the Epstein Defense will eventually win out.”

That defense posits “that if an 80-year-old man can legally have sex with an 18-year-old girl, then a 40-year-old man should be allowed to have sex with a 17-year-old girl,” Skeet continues. “It attacks the arbitrary age limit on sex, which presently determines that once a person has experienced 6,575 rotations of the Earth since his birth, he has met the ethical qualification to engage in sexual intercourse, but those who have experienced only 6,574 rotations or less must wait. It proclaims that age, like sex, is but a social construct and should not be wielded by the ‘far right’ to oppress consensual couples from ‘loving’ each other.”

Skeet is correct, and the moral relativism and biological determinism the Epstein Defense reflects now permeates everything. It perhaps was never articulated better than by former Hollywood youth talent manager Martin Weiss, who molested a 12-year-old client and then years later, recorded on a hidden microphone, explained to the victim, “It is a natural function. The only difference between us and the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom is that we socialize it.”… If animals feel like it, “they go for it.”

Yet the problem is that the Epstein defense is not just Epstein’s — it’s our whole civilization’s. Prescient philosopher G.K. Chesterton predicted in 1926 that “the next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality.…The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan.”

And so it has come to pass. We wanted to justify fornication, no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and sexual license generally, and among the justifications was, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?” It’s mere perspective, a flavor of the day, fifty shades of grey giving us fifty shades of gay and beyond. For once saying there are no absolutes — an idea embraced now by most Americans — it’s a package deal: A prohibition against a behavior, any behavior, based on its “wrongness” cannot be logically maintained.

One is then reduced to operating based on feelings. And so just as many say “if it feels good, do it,” so are we, essentially, saying if it feels wrong, stigmatize it. But feelings are mercurial masters, changing with the wind.

Skeet suggests that many liberals don’t actually, in their heart of hearts, have a problem with p***philia. He’s correct. Nonetheless, consensus societal “feeling” currently precludes p***philia’s acceptance. Will this last? With every single targeted sexual-standard domino having fallen, “finishing the progression,” as in a math problem, informs that the future may not be a very safe place for children.



Dec 11, 2017

Opinion: Netflix Tanking Amidst Blowback For ‘Satanic Programing’ and Partnership With Obamas

Written by Missy Crane · 9 hours ago

The signs are all there. The writing is on the wall. Yet, nobody will address the real reason Netflix is losing subscribers and their stock has been downgraded.

The “insiders” say it’s because of competition in the market, With Disney TV and Apple TV.

Overall, it was Netflix’s US growth that came up short. Domestically, Netflix added 520,000 streaming customers for a total of 60.62 million, shy of its guidance for 800,000 new members. Its international subscriber base grew by 6.26 million members to 97.71 million, slightly better than the 6.2 million new subscribers the company had predicted.​
Shares were up 7.9% at $309 in after-hours trading. Netflix stock had dropped 18% in the last six months, as the subscriber-growth worries have weighed on shares.​
The results come at a crucial time for Netflix, which needed to shake off worries about flagging subscriber growth just as the so-called “streaming wars” intensify. Three months ago, Netflix reported its first drop in US subscribers in eight years. [CNET]​

That may be part of it, but there’s a bigger problem for Netflix and they’re ignoring it because they, like NFL, Gillette, and every other failing social justice company, don’t want to admit that conservatives and Christians have massive consumer power….and we’re right.

This is the first time in 8 years that Netflix has lost subscribers. This is very significant.

Netflix expected over 350K new U.S. users.

They actually lost 126K U.S subscribers.

Sorry Netflix, but people don’t want to watch anti-male/pro-feminist garbage, preachy political nonsense from the Obamas, or disgusting satanic shows.

“Yep, I will not be watching this Sabrina show on Netflix again. What kind of Satanic celebration is this? I had to say “God forbid” at least 20 times.”

Yep, I will not be watching this Sabrina show on Netflix again. What kind of Satanic celebration is this? I had to say “God forbid” at least 20 times.​

“So i noticed something of netflix recent shows sabrina..chambers etc…this shows are pushing their satanic divine feminine…a demoness called lilith…hmmmmm”

So i noticed something of netflix recent shows sabrina..chambers etc…this shows are pushing their satanic divine feminine…a demoness called lilith…hmmmmm​
— AmmaRa Bey™ (@ammaRa13naga) May 7, 2019
“What is up with all these satanic shows on netflix, I know they getting paid by the illuminati”

What is up with all these satanic shows on netflix, I know they getting paid by the illuminati​

“Bro what’s up with all these satanic movies/shows on Netflix? Y’all actually let the devil in and watch that shit? I’m praying for you guys”

Bro what’s up with all these satanic movies/shows on Netflix? Y’all actually let the devil in and watch that shit? I’m praying for you guys​
Not only are subscribers dropping off, but Netflix stock has been downgraded as a result. Worried stockholders and industry leaders are coping, by never not questioning programming or partnerships. It’s just that darn Apple TV, right? RIGHT!

They’re like perpetual ostriches with their heads buried in the sand.

Competition and maturity is making U.S. subscriber growth more challenging, the analyst noted. “We still think its opportunity is excellent, especially internationally where sub adds should continue to step up,” Nollen wrote about Netflix, led by CEO Reed Hastings. “But it’s hard to deny the U.S. is maturing, with sub add growth halving this year … We expect competition coming from Disney+ and others especially in the U.S. will have only modest effect on churn, but we think it will be hard for Netflix to grow much more in the U.S., and we suspect pricing power is limited.”​
A slew of other Wall Street observers on Thursday also reduced their stock price targets for Netflix, with CFRA Research analyst Tuna Amobi cutting his by $35 to $365 while maintaining his “buy” rating on the stock.​
Guggenheim Securities Michael Morris dropped his price target on Netflix by $20 to $400, while also keeping his “buy” rating on the stock. “We are confident in the subscriber and economic growth potential of the business over the long term; however, we do expect investors to remain cautious due to the overhang from competition,” he wrote in his report. “We are lowering our 12-month price target to $400 from our prior $420 based on higher operating expenses and slightly lower subscriber additions.”​
Looking at the company’s U.S. business, Juenger wrote that “we don’t believe 500,000 [subscriber] adds versus 800,000 guide is meaningful.” He added: “The bigger argument is whether Netflix has reached saturation. [Hollywood Reporter]​
Below is a very interesting video that breaks down a lot of the issues that Netflix is facing, including competition, but also their cruddy content. The only show that saved them was the sci-fi hit “Stranger Things.”

Good people do not want to watch shows that try and normalize Satan. We are sick and tired of the fake “girl power” stuff and all the man-bashing. And Barack and Michelle Obama are politicians, not movie producers. Only a very small handful of people care to watch partisan political shows.

Most sane people want to watch movies and TV to escape politics.

Don’t believe me? Take a look:

BREAKING --> Anti-Netflix Boycott Reaches 100,000 SUPPORTERS in less than one week! WE CANCELLED OUR SUBSCRIPTION. Reason? Obama series. https://ilovemyfreedom.org/breaking-anti-netflix-boycott-reaches-100000-supporters-in-less-than-one-week/ … …​


Jan 29, 2018
Another stellar tread here..... the VC forums is hitting a stride these days, and its nice to see!

  • Like
Reactions: NPC