Polanski: Not Enough Jewdicial Double-Standard


Sick Jew scumbag Polanski took full advantage of the naïve little Goyim girl to do his thing. [INCOG] 

by James Buchanan

Roman Polanski was recently arrested in Switzerland for a child rape he committed in 1977. Despite the extreme depravity of the offense and Polanski’s evasion of justice for over three decades, there have been cries of outrage from the liberal media over his arrest.

If some Joe Sixpack picked up a 17 year old in a bar in California, took her home and had consensual sex with her, he could be looking at statutory rape charges. If convicted, he would be on a sex offender list for the rest of his life, and he’d be looking at serious jail time. The age of consent is still 18 in California, Oregon and Wisconsin. It’s been reduced to either 17 or 16 in most other states. Back when the age of consent was still 18 in Illinois, there used to be an old saying that “17 will get you 20? meaning you could be looking at 20 years in prison in a worst case scenario if you had sex with a 17 year old.

Roman Polanski did not merely “miss” the age of consent by a year or two. He had sex with a 13 year old child, who repeatedly told him “No” after he gave her drugs. Polanski’s crime was a very real rape of a child. Amazingly, there is a chorus of support for Polanski among liberals, the Hollywood crowd and even some foreign governments.

One Internet source notes “In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski’s guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer’s mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot.

Angelica Huston was home at the time of the rape.

According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, ‘Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.’ She added, ‘It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.’ Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. ‘We did photos with me drinking champagne,’ Geimer says. ‘Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.’

She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. ‘I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,’ she stated, adding: ‘We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this’. [32] Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes [33], a sedative drug, then kissed her… penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.”


Victim’s statement: Polanski knew what he was doing, alright.

Polanski knew exactly how old his victim was. She wasn’t a 17 year old, who looked 21; she was a 13 year old girl. Amazingly, the worst charges against Polanski were dropped in a plea deal.

The same Internet source goes on “Polanski was initially charged [38] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor…”

Polanski then fled back to France, where for some inexplicable reason, they weren’t willing to extradite Polanski for child rape.

Many of the same people who demand that the charges against Polanski be dropped and forgotten will demand that a 90 year old Ukrainian go on trial on trumped up charges that he was a guard at a concentration camp during World War Two.

So a Jewish director who rapes a 13 year old child is a “wonderful” person who deserves forgiveness while an elderly eastern European who helped fight the Communists in World War Two needs to be dragged before a court and prosecuted for imaginary war crimes.

Whenever you hear a Jew talking about justice, remember the incredible double standard that Jews support.

Source: White Civil Rights

Print Friendly
Download PDF

About INCOG MAN

100% White boy born and bred in the USA. Dedicated to awakening Whites to all the crap being done to our decent, fair-minded race and exposing the devious brainwashing rats behind it all. Wake the ef up, White people!
This entry was posted in Jew Crime and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Polanski: Not Enough Jewdicial Double-Standard

  1. incogman says:

    Thanks.

    As far as the twit goes, who knows? In a certain round-about way, she’s a poster child for the mind rape of White women and America.

    As far as I’m concerned, I use anything I can to get fellow Whites aroused enough to look into the matter. Even the stupid White girls who get knocked off by their Negro boyfriends is game (even though I think they got what they deserved).

  2. babette says:

    I happen to like Bagels. Even more so now.

    Thanks Bagel (this) man and Incogman.

    911=USrael

  3. Bagel This says:

    You’ll dig this stuff incog. Here’s the link to the first installment of the Laurel Canyon crowd story. Sorry Kiddo, but it looks like you’re waiting for something. And I hate giving good people bad news. But don’t worry, once you walk out that door you’ll feel right as rain. Here, have a cookie.

    http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

  4. Rock says:

    Allright Bagel- Slick matrix quote. I feel ya.

  5. babette says:

    Bagel This: Thanks. That “davesweb” is outstanding!

    b
    911=USrael

  6. Marshall says:

    Put Polanski in Charles Manson’s cell LOL!!!

  7. Leif Oldhart says:

    The davesweb material on the Laurel Canyon crowd furnishes pretty good proof that the so-called “counter culture” was really a “kosher kultur,” and a well planned culture distortion operation.

  8. JamesTheJust says:

    Looks like an excellent site Bagel this. Thanks.

  9. kerdasi amaq says:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Polanski.html

    Kevin MacDonald

    October 3, 2009

    Over 30 years ago, director Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. The details aren’t pretty. According to the girl’s Grand Jury Testimony, Polanski plied her with enough alcohol and Quaaludes to make her dizzy and disoriented. He then had oral copulation with her, followed by sexual intercourse, and ending with sodomy because he did not want to get her pregnant. In her testimony, the girl made it clear that she went along with Polanski’s advances because of fear.

    The girl declined to testify at trial, so Polanski was able to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor even though the Grand Jury charged him with rape of a minor, sodomy, rape by use of a drug, and other crimes. He served 42 days in a psychiatric observation facility before fleeing to France. Since 1997, the victim has urged that the charges be dropped, but apparently did so only after receiving a substantial financial settlement…

  10. Marshall says:

    Polanski is a devil-worshipper. He was all wrapped up with Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan, right along with the Manson Family and various Hollywood stars and starlets back in the 60’s. He made “Rosemary’s Baby.” Sharon Tate was in a movie about blatant witchcraft and human sacrifice. “Eye of the Devil.”

    Polanski fairly recently made “The Ninth Gate” with Johnny Depp…now there was some twisted Satanic crap. The fact that Hollywood is trying to defend this Jew mega-creep just goes to show who they REALLY ARE, doesn’t it? Obvious to anybody with any sense whatsoever.

  11. Rabbi Gas Chamberstein says:

    Nothing to see here Goyim. The Talmud says its OK.

  12. Rabbi Gas Chamberstein says:

    I heard SPLC controls WHITE NATIONALIST movement! And that they’re used for boogyman to create Hate Crime Legislation.

    Sounds very reasonable considering MOST WHITE NATIONALISTS are IGNORANT of the JEW PROBLEM. Heck! Most think Ayraabs did 911.

  13. Marshall says:

    I heard that looks good on the front page of PRAVDA, so what? LMAO

  14. JamesTheJust says:

    Yeah Rabbi,

    I stay clear of those mega organizations. Too risky. So many jews have been caught within the ranks; usually at or near the top. Can’t trust ’em. It is better for Whites to organize locally with other like-minded Whites you know or go ‘lone wolf’.

    I am fortunate. I have a brotherhood which is bonded by YHWH and expressed knowledge of who were, the Aryan race is and who the Jews REALLY are.

    I try to share this with my kinsmen as much as I can.

    Go to the ADL hit list. We used to be at the top. Now I don’t know and don’t care what the Edomites think of us.

  15. Marshall says:

    British Israelism.

    BLOOD lineage doesn’t mean JACK SQUAT. Yeah, there is the “Stone of Scone.” There is also the Dome of the Rock.

    The Talmud accuses Jesus of worshipping a BRICK. Did you know that? Maybe not.

    Jesus supposedly said something to PETER. By the way, “PETER” is Latin for ROCK.

    “Upon this rock shall I build my church, and hell shall not prevail against it.”

    That’s Christ. This place called “Petra” was carved from solid rock. Talk about some craftsmanship. WOW.

    Jews, accuse. LAW….well,

  16. Whitefella says:

    Kate Harding nails the pedophile child rapist Polanski perfectly correctly, AND some of his child-rape-apologist supporters. Crapweasels I think she calls them. Sounds about right to me.

    Any of Polanski’s crapweasels reading this article won’t like it, but hey – bad luck.

    — — — — —

    Polanski Raped a Child

    from: Salon.com

    by: Kate Harding

    Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never – poor baby – being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

    Drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are.

    Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

    The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski “as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge.” Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and “was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence,” also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: “The 13-year old model ‘seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies.” Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: “The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.”

    Wow, OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn’t like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn’t count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn’t 14.” Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There’s that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she’d been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story – most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on “she wanted it” grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it’s much safer to focus on the victim’s age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny “he said, she said” stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

    Second, Polanski was “demonized by the press” because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He “feared heavy sentencing” because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

    As ludicrous as Shore’s post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum, who finds it “bizarre” that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

    There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

    There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence – albeit purely anecdotal, in this case – that only the most debased crapweasel thinks “I didn’t know she was 13!” is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she’s said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that “notoriety, lawyers’ fees and professional stigma” are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

    But hey, he wasn’t allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that’s holy, hasn’t the man suffered enough?

    Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

    He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

    Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an “understandable fear of irrational punishment,” but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family – but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn’t Kafkaesque stuff.

    But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she’d like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn’t we be honoring her wishes above all else?

    In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven’t named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

    It works on behalf of the people, in fact – the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not – and at least in theory, does not – tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you’ve made.

    Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we’re seeing now has been heating up since “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” the 2008 documentary about Polanski’s fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary’s whitewashing of Polanksi’s crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he’d need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. “Fugitives don’t get to dictate the terms of their case … Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed.”

    The reporting on Polanski’s arrest has been every bit as “bizarrely skewed,” if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.

    ? Kate Harding

    http://whats-going-on-alex.blogspot.com/

  17. JR says:

    Now you know why the Jew Polanski ass f**ked that 13 year-old …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swukpgmuqr0&feature=related

  18. Whitefella says:

    Interesting video, but what is more interesting is that it seems to have been sitting there on jewtube for a very long time. LOL!

    Scott Roberts over at Forbidden Truth.com, as just one example of many, has had any number of vids and jewtube accounts euthanized by jewtube for saying Truth jews don’t like to hear, but the above vid is jewtube kosher?

    The above vid just sorta sneaks under their “hate” speech radar? Oh please.

    Do you smell a rat wearing a yarmulke?

  19. Whitefella says:

    One more comment directed to the pedophile child rapist Polanski’s supporters, ooops, Polanski’s crapweasels.

    — — — — —

    A Good Question –

    I recently heard someone pose the question, “What if it was Father Roman Polanski rather than Roman Polanski, celebrity?” We certainly went after priests who sexually abused children years earlier. Why is this situation any different?

    — — — — —

    Yeah, I wonder why . . .

    You get the feeling all of his hypocritical child rape apologist crapweasels would have been howling for the blood of those priests accused of old crimes of child molestation many years before it became The Big Issue on the front page of all the jewmedia?

    I do.

  20. OnOurOwn says:

    “Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski.”

    Gore Vidal: Thirteen-year-old Roman Polanski rape victim was a ‘hooker’

    http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/30/gore-vidal-thirteen-year-old-roman-polanski-rape-victim-was-a-hooker/

  21. American says:

    “The woman said she was invited to his private island where she claimed the star – real name David Kotkin – sexually assaulted her.”

    David Kotkin is David Copperfield. JEWS know if they can stall long enough (2 years in this case) , people will let it go:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8456070.stm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *