Monday, July 26, 2010

This negro just did not like being black!


If one was to come onto this blog and go through the Archives, one would see that I have an affection for Our Dear Michael. That's a reasonable conclusion, I know. 

However, one would also be able to see the slow evolution of a conscious mind.

I have tried very hard to ignore this fool's sins because of that aforementioned 'affection'. Now, I won't even bother, as my 'Re: Michael's sexuality' posts and other related entries have shown (yes, I'm slow on the upkeep of this blog but I've been doing other things; forgive me).

I don't care if I seem like a 'hater'. 

Some interesting things have come to my attention recently and got me to thinking along that fun Michael Jackson tangent. Yes, the tangent that would make me seem like a 'hater'.

Yesterday afternoon, a reader emailed me with some information about Michael's children (thanks, Susana!). No, not about any of his alleged children, like Omer Bhatti, Donte Jackson, or Prince Michael Malachi Jet Jackson (let's get real: Michael Jackson did not like women enough to father children in the 'normal way'), but his actual children Prince, Paris, and Blanket.

Or are they his actual children?

She linked me to a thread (on the lustrous Lipstick Alley, no doubt) about Tom Mesereau--Michael's attorney for his 2005 trial who, through cunning and skill, saved him from the steel bars of a prison cell--discussing something or another about Michael.

He's done this frequently since Michael's death, sort of killing his credibility in my most humblest of opinions; he's coming off more as a fan than a professional. Tragic.

Anyway, the thread (you can read it here) claims that Mesereau 'confirmed' the identity of Michael's children in a video interview (you can watch the video here), saying Michael had 'two white children and a Hispanic'. 


I have TWICE posted entries regarding the paternity of Michael's children, and I really thought this was the last time this whole thing needed to be discussed. But, apparently, there still exists disbelievers. So, let me 'break it down' once again for the skeptics:

As I posted here, it has already been stated by a legitimate source that Michael Jackson is the father of Paris and Prince Jackson (the most 'questionable' of the three, I believe). When I say 'legitimate', I mean Debbie Rowe's divorce attorney and longtime friend, Iris Finsilver. Since I know most people will not click the link to that post to see her quote on Larry King Live back in July 2009 for themselves, I will paste what she said on the show in this entry:
KING: With all the rumors swirling around, did she ever tell you that Michael wasn't the father?
FINSILVER: I know that Michael was the father.
KING: Was the father.
FINSILVER: One hundred percent, Michael is the father of those two children. Yes.
Yes, like I said: it's already been attested to. But let me explain.

Why does Iris Finsilver have more legitimacy than Tom Mesereau in the discussion of Michael's children? It is because, as Debbie's attorney regarding custody disputes with Michael, she was privy to knowledge of paternity. Mesereau, on the other hand, was merely Michael's criminal lawyer, and I highly doubt he bogarted Michael with questions of his children's biology.

It was just not important in terms of the issues at hand: yet another--really, it was inevitable--child molestation accusation.

Also, Mesereau--like many people, obviously--based his assumptions (yes, they are assumptions) about Prince, Paris, and Blanket's races because of their skin color. 

So, not hard science or a DNA test, but his fallible eyes

For individuals who especially live in the United States, we should all know you cannot base race or ethnicity off skin color; that is faulty and can be inaccurate. 

There seems to be this sort of dogma that there is no way Michael could have had three children and none of them 'look black'. Well, let me attempt to explain that one, too, although I must admit this may enter that grey area of 'speculation'.

Here's my theory:

Prince Jackson, Michael's first child, was the product of a normal artificial insemination procedure combining Michael's sperm with Debbie's egg. When Prince emerged from his mother's womb 'light, bright, and damn near white'--although the boy had dark eyes and black hair--Michael was very much pleased due to his severe self-hatred. Of course, Prince was not 'white enough' and his father bleached his hair.

Here's a picture of Fat Baby Prince in his 'original form':

Because of Michael's self-hatred, he went about having Paris and then Blanket using in vitro fertilization with his own sperm cells but made sure to pick the right traits, meaning traits that did not scream 'black'. The methods of the rich and famous are sometimes incomprehensible to we mere mortals but money talks: if you want an attractive child or a child with the most beautiful features it can be done through genetic manipulations and engineering.

The colloquial term is designer baby, and it has serious ethical implications.

So, what I'm saying is, although Prince and Paris look 'white' and Blanket looks 'Hispanic', they are Michael's children. Biologically. He just willed and then paid for them to look white and Hispanic, respectively.

Because Prince has vitiligo and Blanket, without a doubt, has Michael's eyes.

So, when they say, 'He bought those kids,' you can counter and say, 'Au contraire, mon ami; he bought their genes!'

Because that's the truth. Michael wouldn't have went through all of that trouble with Lisa Marie Presley and then Debbie Rowe (which cost him millions) if he didn't want his own biological kids.

But let's get to the point of this blog entry.

Although many on the Lipstick Alley thread believed Michael's children were not his--which, honestly, I don't really care about--they couldn't think of it along a rational tip.

Am I seriously the only one who thinks it is a problem that Michael would have, hypothetically speaking, adopted or ordained the birth of white and Hispanic children? That is a huge problem, yet no one on the thread saw it as a 'big deal'. Not one of them linked his children (be they adopted or biological) with his other displays of self-hatred.

Like hanging out with little white boys, whittling his nose down to a horrendous point, and choosing the 'full-on bleach' option to deal with his vitiligo. Not to mention his marriages (both farcical) to two white women.

Michael's children, and their lightness, is more sinister than we have ever imagined. A simple adoption of white and Latino kids would not really be a big thing: he would have been rescuing children from the insecure lives of being orphans.

But this guy's children are biologically his! Paris and Prince are genetically modified mulattos! Blanket was a science experiment conducted by one of the freakiest, most self-loathing negroes in the world!

The truth is Michael did not want to be black. He hated his black father, he secretly loathed his black mother, and he despised his avaricious black siblings. He surrounded himself in the dreams and fantasies of whiteness and white people, like Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando, and Liza Minelli.

The late Bob Jones, Michael's longtime PR man, stated in his book co-written with Stacy Brown, Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask, that Michael hated his own people and referred to them as 'splaboos', some outdated Southern term for blacks.

Now, initially I did not believe this charge. I could not fathom 'blackest' Michael to have ever spoke a word of ill against his own.

But I have found out that Jones' charge has been verified and is indeed legitimate. In Maureen Orth's April 2003 Vanity Fair article "Losing His Grip", she mentions an affidavit given by a former deputy for Santa Barbara County, Sergeant Deborah Linden. To quote the affidavit as in the article:
"Jackson told Ms. Francia [Blanca Francia] that he bleaches his skin because he does not like being black and he feels that blacks are not liked as much as people of other races."
Orth goes on to mention that she was told Michael referred to blacks as 'spabooks'.

Now, does that not sound eerily similar to the aforementioned 'splaboos' Jones alleges? I figure 'spabooks' is simply a bastardization of the original because those who had heard it, namely his lowly workers, many of whom are Latinos and other foreigners, had accents.

By the way, Bob Jones had yet to be fired by Michael Jackson at the time of Maureen Orth's investigative piece.

Michael's usage of 'splaboos' is especially hurtful coming from a black man who had transformed himself into a half-white, half-Asian plasticized monstrosity, and it was this transformation--aided and abetted by the Man--that thrust him into the stratosphere of global popularity.

Yes, very hurtful indeed.

If any of his colored fans, especially black, still delude themselves into believing he liked being black, please open your eyes. He did not like being black and the genetic manipulation of genes to produce his three children proves this. The worst is the majority of his fans, many of whom are not black, see nothing wrong with Michael's 'decisions'.

But that is how it goes in our global racial caste system. Even blacks don't want to be black and others are quick to goad such a self-hatred, as we see with Michael and his record company, and then with his fans by their extension of 'love' towards such a tortured soul.

I'll close this entry with something from Michael's greatest collaborator.

After Michael's death, Quincy Jones, a black man not shy to the world of interracial relationships and white women, was quoted as saying (this is taken from the book Jacko: His Rise and Fall by Darwin Porter, page 556):
"I'm angry because Michael wanted to turn himself white.... Have you ever seen his kids? He obviously didn't want them to be black. We talked about it all the time. He claimed he had this skin disease, that he had a blister on his lungs--all that kind of bullshit! Michael was a Virgo, set in his ways. You couldn't talk him out of it--the chemical peels, and all that stuff. His death hurts my soul, man. It's just a lump down there."
So maybe within all of the jokes and taunts about Michael's 'transformation' there exists a grain of truth.

He probably did want to be white; not only that, he also hated his own people, or he did to an extent. I always found it interesting how it seemed that there was a disconnect between Michael's discussion of blacks and himself.

Quincy sheds a bright light...

I was going to save this picture for another entry but it seems too apropos for me to pass it up.

this is fan-created. SMH.

The little black boy can only dream, right, Michael? damn...

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

VIDEO FIND: 'Michael Jackson: What Really Happened?'

Diane Dimond--I have to admit--has this tangible hatred for Michael.

I've seen her on TV and, although I do agree with her on some points she makes, there is something 'odd' about her longing to expose Michael as a pedophile. Alleged pedophile, I mean.

So I found this video!

Diane looks evil, in my opinion.

Best thing as well, it shows Bob Jones and Victor Gutierrez, author of Michael Jackson Was My Lover, which is a highly entertaining, slash fanfiction, with real documents thrown in for good measure. Gutierrez was being interviewed in a parked car at night!

If you haven't read Michael Jackson Was My Lover, you are missing out. I think they are actually selling copies of that gem on for a reasonable $150 price tag; I paid more, as I have two copies. That book, in a nutshell, was written by a pedophile (Gutierrez) for pedophiles.

You'll have to trust me on this. I'll discuss all about that book in a blog entry coming soon.

But back to the video...

Diane says within that Michael and Jordie Chandler were nuzzling and petting at the World Music Awards in Monaco, saying he was bouncing Jordie in his lap and repeating 'Rubba, Rubba'.

First of all, seeing that Diane covered the trial for Court TV back in 2005, she should know 'Rubba' was not a sexual name Michael used to call his 'special friends' he would 'rub against'; the transcripts reveal it was short for 'Rubberhead'.

I doubt he was 'rubbing against' Frank Dileo!

Here's a video of Michael and Jordie at the awards show:

Looks fairly innocuous, doesn't it? Makes Diane Dimond look like a liar, right?

But according to reports, the tiny country of Monaco was abuzz with the conduct of Michael with Jordie! What that video shows is merely what the camera saw, not what the audience witnessed. From Christopher Anderson's fabulous biography Michael Jackson: Unauthorized, pages 289 and 290:
When Michael introduced his friends [the Chandlers: June, Jordie, and Lily] to Prince Albert and Princesses Caroline and Stephanie, "it was as if he were introducing his own family.... It seemed very odd." But not as odd as what transpired at the awards ceremony itself....
...Joey Randall [Jordie Chandler] sat in his [Michael's] lap, giggling as Michael cuddled, stroked, and nuzzled the boy without restraint. One observer watched in amazement as Michael reportedly ran his hand up and down the boy's leg.
The two were dressed identically in black outfits and red armbands, matching black hats, and mirrored appeared the boy was no more than nine. Had they [those in attendance] known he was thirteen, the reaction would probably have been stronger. "It was really very shocking," said British journalist Piers Morgan, who sat just a few yards from Jackson. "Monaco was talking about it for days."
Observed journalist Morgan, who followed Michael and his friends around Monaco for five days: "He could hardly take his hands off Joey [Jordie].... I found the whole thing extremely uncomfortable." 
So, what we see in the clip above may not have been the whole story.

Maybe Diane Dimond is 'evil'--a 'demon'--but she could've very well been accurate.

Of course, we don't know about the alleged 'hair-licking'. I don't believe it; that just seems like a silly concoction from someone's head...

It was also alleged that they were 'late' to the show; the video of the awards ceremony above shows they arrived and went straight in, so it's possible it was due to tardiness. Our good friend Victor Gutierrez alleges it was because of some sexual activity.

WARNING: the following is very graphic! Reader beware!

From page 52 of Michael Jackson Was My Lover:
Jordie dressed in the same type of uniform as Jackson. Jackson approached him, kissed him on the lips, and told him that he would like to make love. Jordie responded by telling him that they would arrive late to the presentation. Michael insisted that it would be quick, and sat Jordie on the bed and began to lower his pants. Jordie opened his legs and Michael began to suck his penis until the boy ejaculated. Then Jordie, half dressed in the bed, watched as Michael masturbated in front of him.
Now I don't know if any of the above is true but that long quote reminds me of how important it is to discuss Gutierrez's book. Some fans erroneously assume it was written by Evan Chandler, Jordie's father and possible extortioner of Michael Jackson.

Well, they are dead wrong and most likely have never read the book (which is a common theme, let me tell you).

So, what really happened in Monaco?

Well, apparently, it cost Michael between $15.3 and $25 million.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Re: Michael's sexuality: VIDEO FIND: Papa Joe plagued by MJ gay 'rumors'

Although I could be entirely wrong about Michael's sexuality, the following video clip is telling (thanks to Hirsch for finding it for me).

Interviewed by British journalist Louis Theroux, Joe Jackson is asked about the possibility of Michael settling down with a 'partner' sometime in the future. Joe becomes very angry at the word 'partner', as it is a common term used to describe individuals involved in homosexual unions:

Joe's reaction (and the reaction of family friend, Majestik Magnificent) could be chopped up to just an irrational response: he thought Theroux had insinuated his son was gay. Many fathers do not like the idea of their sons every being 'gay'.

I mean, it could've just been an innocuous 'lost in translation' situation.


But, for some reason, Joe and Majestik's rage--which resulted in Theroux's expulsion from the hotel room--makes me think of all of the gay 'rumors' the Jackson family, and Michael himself, had to battle throughout their history in the limelight.

Michael had repeatedly denied being a homosexual, that it was just a 'rumor' that followed him around like a dark cloud. With regards to Michael's ambiguous sexuality, Jermaine Jackson was once quoted as saying:
"We used to quietly say that we couldn't have a gay brother."
Then I think of Arnold Klein 'outing' Michael; of Liz Taylor angry about Klein 'outing' Michael but never denying the charge, just the method; of the homoerotic books found in his home when they raided Neverland back in November 2003 (such as Man, the Sexual Study of Man).

And now Joe in this clip.

So what's the truth?

Although I may very well be off-base, check the video again. If the rumors weren't true, or there wasn't just an ounce of truth in them, why did Joe get so angry with Louis Theroux? Why did Majestik flip out?

Are they just homophobes (or 'traditionally-minded', if you will), or did Louis strike a nerve?

Seriously, I think that rage was fueled by denial. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think Michael was at all hetero-normative. His 'art book' collection shows that is the case.

But I'll get to that in time.

Bear with me on my erratic posting; stay tuned.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Michael Does Vegas

So, this highly sacrilegious piece was written by Yours Truly because I was bored and it had been the weekend (a week or so ago); in sum, it was the perfect storm to create a good Michael Jackson fanfic! 

We all remember Ian Halperin, right? He claimed to have spoken to many of Michael's 'gay lovers' for his book, Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael JacksonWell, this story is along that tangent. Just read it for laughs and don't take it too seriously... What fangirl doesn't like a good bit of slash?

Summary: Michael Jackson gets to do whatever, and whomever, he wants while in Sin City. Tonight, his confused driver--new to Michael's world--becomes a silent witness to his boss' fun.

Rating: R for consenting adult homoerotic sexuality and suggestive dialogue

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Re: Michael's sexuality: Dr. Farshchian and Depo-Provera

As I mentioned in the previous 'Re: Michael's sexuality' post, the song 'Childhood' was a pathetic ploy, perhaps arrogant or maybe even defiant. If Michael was indeed a child molester, that song and video was a slap in the face to Jordie Chandler and all victims of child sexual abuse.

Why, you ask?

Because of Michael's brazen declaration that his own actions were merely the 'eccentricities' of a so-called 'man-child'! Even if Michael was innocent of child molestation and was not a pedophile but a tortured artist forbidden a childhood, and it was that denial which fostered some sort of mental pathology forcing him to create Neverland and sleep in the bed with other people's children, he still had some nerve.

Well, at least in my opinion. 

You don't repudiate rumors of pedophilia by attempting to brainwash the public that you're only a 'child' and sleepovers with young boys are just what 'children' do. That is not smart!

But what does Michael's insistence on sleeping in the same bed with children really mean? Was it merely stupidity, naivete, and lack of insight? Or was it more than that?

Was it a compulsion?

On the compulsion tip, I managed to find disturbing information that literally shook me to my core, even before I ever had the idea to start this series.

The United Kingdom's Daily Mirror published a story in August 2009 involving one of Michael's doctors who had treated him in the early 2000s. According to the article, Michael's then-doctor, Dr. Alimorad 'Alex' Farshchian, was worried about Michael's 'behaviors'--for lack of a better term--towards children. Says a so-called 'source' close to the doctor (clearly, he may have thought it improper to discuss a former patient's medical history in the Press):
"It was really Dr Farshchian, when he became aware of the sleepovers, who planted the idea in Michael’s head that he might have a problem.
"As a responsible doctor, Dr Farshchian thought these tendencies were something Michael might address. Dr Farshchian didn’t necessarily think there was abuse going on – but he was concerned there were inappropriate feelings towards minors which could be addressed."
The (alleged) treatment Dr. Farshchian had in mind were injections of the female birth control medicine, Depo-Provera. The good doctor's spokesperson confirmed the use of the drug in the treatment:
"Yes, that's exactly it. He was trying to help Michael."
This hormone, when given to men, can be used as a non-invasive form of castration, which is the process, in Layman's terms, of reducing or completely eliminating the male sex drive:
...a drug called Depo-Provera...sharply diminishes sex drive in men by reducing their production of testosterone.  [source]
So basically, Dr. Farshchian was worried about Michael's preoccupation with children, so much so that this highly respected doctor of orthopedic medicine suggested chemical castration!

Dr. Farshchian orginally came into Michael's life, according to the Mirror article, after Michael had broken his foot slipping at Neverland. We don't know what caused him to slip but, as I mentioned in my blog entry about Grace Rwaramba and drugs, it is possible he was over-medicated and on prescription pills and was simply too intoxicated to keep his balance.

This would also jive with a letter Farshchian wrote to 'Dearest MJ' on July 21, 2002 that the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department found in the raid of Neverland in 2003. The topic was 'outpatient detoxification' at Farshchian's facility in Florida. Clearly, at that time, Michael Jackson was heavily addicted to drugs.

So, Dr. Farshchian was never some 'Doctor Feelgood' like Dr. Arnold Klein, but someone who sincerely had Michael's best interests and well-being in mind. 

This is why the story had such an affect on me. What am I supposed to believe with an article like this? I could not cast it aside as simply yet another fictional Michael Jackson yarn printed in the so-called tabloids. That would be ridiculous and very naive.

Farshchian was quoted at the end of the article:
"When I heard of his death it was the saddest moment of my life. I’m proud I met Mr Jackson."
Clearly, the man does not harbor any ill will towards Michael, so I said to myself, 'Why would this be a lie?'

Originally, for some unknown reason, I had linked Dr. Farshchian's 'prescription' of Depo-Provera with his seemingly vast amount of commercial pornography. I thought that that had been the reason Michael needed help. Of course, now that doesn't make any sense; I must have not read the article closely.

So what does this say about Michael?

Since there is no real evidence that he ever underwent the treatment, we can only surmise that it was simply a 'recommendation' from a legitimate doctor based on what he perceived to be questionable conduct on Michael's part when Michael Jackson was around children.

This is something no one can deny, however: Michael Jackson has a peculiar preoccupation with children.

Ultimately, chemical castration is an extreme measure only undergone by men with dangerous sexual compulsions. (It is worth noting that the treatment is completely reversible.)

We should ask ourselves: why would Dr. Alimorad Farshchian--a man who deals with arthritis and bones--want to give Michael Jackson a chemical castration drug?

It's a damned good question. Stay tuned.

ETA July 15, 2010:

It has come to my attention that this story has circulated around the Internet with the long quote attributed to a source close to the doctor as being from Ian Barkley, a former photographer for Michael at one point. Barkley DID NOT say the above quotes, nor did I mention Barkley in this entry. 

Friday, July 9, 2010

Mystery solved: it was the greedy Jacksons.

Didn't I tell you about Michael Jackson's 'golden goose' status?

Well, this is on a similar tip...

I keep getting Google Alerts about Katherine Jackson's 'endeavors'. So, I decided to research.

Despite the fact she holds 40 percent of her son's estate, which means she can't at all be hurting for cash, it seems as if she's planning to make movies or something else Michael-related. Seems innocuous enough, sure: she has hours of home video footage of Michael and his brothers and wants to 'share it with the world' in a feature film similar to This Is It. You know, a documentary situation.

Her business partner, Howard Mann--a millionaire who ran an online nude gambling business and co-authored her book Never Can Say Goodbye: The Katherine Jackson Archives--reportedly paid millions to Marc Schaffel for the additional footage of Michael for any potential films or movies.

But these movie plans were not the fruits of my investigations, no matter how 'avaricious' the whole thing seems.

No, the real story, I've learned, is about Michael's two-hundred-plus unreleased songs. Apparently, Howard Mann has them and, along with Katherine, and, presumably, Joe Jackson, they are planning to make some record deals.

So money will be changing hands and profits will be made! Of course!

However, Katherine and Joe's share could be seized by the Moonies, a South Korean operation who sued them in the 1990s over lost concert opportunities with Michael and Janet Jackson. The judgment against Mama and Papa Jackson is long overdue and has ballooned from around $4M to $13 million. That situation with the Jacksons was a disgustingly greedy ploy by the Jacksons, too. But that's a whole different story...

Surprisingly enough these songs had been missing and how these got into Howard Mann's possession is an interesting little tale, indicative of Jackson Greed...naturally.

Let's take it back.

According to Michael's longtime manager, Frank DiLeo, immediately after Michael's death, the family arrived at his Holmby Hills, California mansion to 'take stuff':
"They backed up trucks, removing everything. They thought Michael owned it all, so they took even the rented furniture. That's who's going to run his estate?"
It was also stated La Toya Jackson had taken hard drives of Michael's unreleased songs.
...[S]ister LaToya has taken possession of computer hard drives that contain a trove of unreleased songs he recorded with A-list singers such as Ne-Yo, Akon, and of the Black Eyed Peas....
La Toya, of course, denied this accusation, although I cannot find an exact quote of her denial to link in this entry. She, however, did state this in her ABC News 20/20 interview with Barbara Walters. As a sort of consolation, La Toya did point the finger to someone else (nameless and most likely shadowy, of course):
 "Michael always had cash in his homes, usually around $2 million (£1.2 million) which he used to pay out on things. People said he wasn't wealthy, but Michael always had money with him. When I went to the house later that day there was NO cash or jewellery. So many people had been through that house before I got there. Someone went in there and did a good job. It was very strange." 
Apparently--and this may be news to La Toya herself--she went to her brother's home in search of valuable merchandise and money. Shifting the blame does not change the fact she sought out his 'loot'. I believe she was lying.

Howard Mann's possession of Michael's two hundred seventy-three unreleased songs proves La Toya was not telling the truth.

Mann managed to acquire the songs only after Joe Jackson failed to pay the monthly fee to a storage facility where the songs had been kept. Naturally, if one were to put two and two together, it's pretty obvious La Toya took the songs, gave them to her father, and they had them put away for 'safe keeping'. Or they could have been merely hiding stolen goods.

So, basically, what we have here is Mann acquiring an invaluable Michael Jackson lot that had been stolen! By his own family, no less!

It's all very disheartening, in my opinion, but, as I have researched, not at all surprising.

It was a little after Michael's death, his nanny, Grace Rwaramba, was quoted in the papers attesting to the Jackson family's quest for Michael's stash:
"The relative said, 'Grace, you remember Michael used to hide cash at the house? I'm here. Where can it be?' I told them to look in the garbage bags and under the carpets. But can you believe that? They just lost Michael a few hours ago and already one of them is calling me to know where the money is!"
For the sake of accuracy, Grace has long denied saying all kinds of things about Michael and his family. However, I think all of that was a convenient way to get back into Prince, Paris, and Blanket's lives; if she did not repudiate herself, she would have been barred from the children ( so much for that now). I believe many of the quotes attributed to Grace in the press following Michael's death were from her mouth and were truthful. Not all, of course, but many...

But funny how the above statement jives with La Toya's own assertion--whether she realizes it or not--she had known cash was 'missing' because she was looking for it!

I can imagine how it went: La Toya came to the house, brazen enough to not even wait until dark; she scurried about searching for goodies, perhaps with a pillowcase gripped in hand; she then found valuables and took them.

Later on once back at family headquarters, she was patted on the head by Joe Jackson, "Good, Toy Toy; good," he would say.

It makes perfect sense.

Now, Joe and Katherine are in cahoots with Mann, since it was Papa Joe who, out of inability, thrift, or sheer indifference, stupidly lost the Michael Jackson spoils. If they aren't involved with him in some sort of way the whole process of going to Michael's house and 'moving stuff to put it in to storage' would have been risky and in vain.

Mann doesn't care if they are along for the ride, either; a Jackson family alliance would just make his products and ventures seem more legitimate and, thus, more 'salable' to Michael's fans.

I don't know; it would seem as if the best owner of any of Michael's property would be his Estate, not some third party who won goods stolen by Michael's own family members in a sort of 'raid' because one of those aforementioned family members forgot to pay a bill. But, really, Joe Jackson has to be behind all of this, at least with regards to Katherine's involvement in these projects.

He was completely shut out of his son's fortune and was all but laughed at in an attempt to get an 'allowance'. The only way left for him to get in on the gravy train would be to do Michael-related side projects, like the museum in Gary, Indiana, the Michael Jackson belts, or one his numerous unauthorized Michael Jackson memorials/tributes.

Having one of the beneficiaries--said beneficiary being his wife--on his side to co-sign on any ventures would make it seem as if profits were going to benefit Katherine and Michael's children, thus making it less suspicious.

But we all know the individuals involved, Howard Mann, for example, wouldn't waste their time on any projects if they didn't expect for a nice bit of money to come their way. Mann did not pay Schaffel millions of dollars for raw footage of Michael Jackson if his efforts were merely a 'charitable deed' solely for the 'benefit of the beneficiaries'. Any assertion otherwise would be laughable; there's a reason the Estate has their eye on him.

I'm still trying to figure out if Katherine's involvement is Joe Jackson puppetry or suggestive of her own greedy streak. It was said:
"Katherine is a strong woman who can stand up to pretty much anyone but Joe. There's too much history there.  Joe has always controlled her and always will."
I don't know. She plays 'naive old lady' very well but I have a feeling something is amiss about her in a sinister way. As I have proven in this entry, La Toya Jackson is a thief, but I believe she was telling truths in her early 1990s autobiography when she described the behaviors of her parents, especially her mother.

In sum, the missing songs, which I had heard about repeatedly just after Michael died, have been found and the secret of that 'discovery' resulted in not only another disgusting tale of Jackson greed but law-breaking, too!

Juicy, yes (well, the story of the Moonies is pretty cringe-worthy, too), but we can see why Michael and even his sister, Janet, distanced themselves from their own family. Why does money have to change the equation, change the family dynamic? Why does materialism turn people cold-blooded? Frankly, it's all quite sad.

Cash cows and golden geese. Yep.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Re: Michael's sexuality: an introduction

For the fans, Michael Jackson's sexuality is an important and intriguing issue.

Although it is obsessed over to the point of childishness, it's, nevertheless, one of the few mysteries yet to crack in the Michael Jackson saga.

Why do we need to crack it? Shouldn't we let sleeping dogs lie?

Honestly, I am one of the types of individuals who believes very strongly in the Celebrity's right to privacy; a respect of their boundaries and personal space; and the right for them to maintain an element of themselves for themselves. It was Marilyn Monroe who said, a few weeks before she overdosed, that the public 'takes pieces of you'.

It is true: none of this sleuthing is especially important with regards to his musical legacy, a legacy he would most likely want us to only remember.

Tough titty; he has two legacies.

If we, as fans, want a holistic understanding of Michael (who is now deceased and cannot complain), I suppose it is imperative to investigate. Besides, his sexuality is not just who he dated or didn't date; it also has to do with the child molestation and pedophilia rumors, innuendos, and cover-ups.

So, this is just the first post of many as I personally attempt to understand Michael Jackson. Call me 'Desiree: Michael Jackson P.I.', for it is a name befitting Your Humble Narrator. Please: don't judge.

Was Michael a womanizer?

Was he straight?

Or was he a struggling homosexual?

Was he possibly asexual?

Was he a molester of young boys?

Or was he merely a man with pedophilic urges who never predated upon a child?

Or was he 'Peter Pan', a victim of the worst luck imaginable?

I have read several books and have researched articles and news stories; it was early June, late into the evening, when one search in Google led me down a path of Enlightenment (or enlightenment to a certain point). Undoubtedly, I still have more to do but this is a start (and it is damned good fun! Hey, we all have our hobbies...).

However, fans, these series of posts require an open mind, a willingness to accept a different perspective on Michael. The reality is 'denial' is a mental stasis; it impedes the ability to see Truth because 'rationalizing' has become the modus operandi in dealing with Michael Jackson-related situations and revelations! I, too, am guilty of this. This is also not about judgment or naysaying; even after my investigations, I still absolutely adore this man. I am just a bit wiser, in my opinion. 

But, I will say this: based upon some of my findings, I believe we have been snowed in some areas, by Michael himself and his constantly whizzing PR machine (this exists during his life and after his death, and consists of, among other people, his family: the much beloathed Jacksons). Think of it like this: if Michael Jackson had not been famous and did not make the breadth of amazing music he had made, we would all be thinking a lot differently.

So many lies (alternately, truth) I have uncovered, it is unbelievable. Please stick around no matter how uncomfortable it may be as I try to separate fact from fiction.

Because it will be uncomfortable. But uneasiness tends to be the way of Truth...

Also, don't down my sources because you may feel some of them are dubious; I have discussed this before: so-called tabloids are sometimes the only place to get celebrity-related news. They do serve a purpose.

Lastly, if you have a comment on any of the investigations forthcoming, please leave one. The goal is synthesis, not confusion. (i am not scary despite my self-confidence; trust me)


To start, it is imperative to understand the man that was Michael Jackson, the self-proclaimed 'Peter Pan' who always seemed to make an effort to mention how he 'lost out' on a childhood.

He even made the song and music video 'Childhood' to quell the speculations as to whether or not he was a child-molesting pedophile.

Whether or not he was, the 'Childhood' song/video was a PR move. Having seen the video, I am yet to be convinced either way as to its overall helpfulness...

But I believe the video below is a good introduction, as it can shine a light on Michael Jackson, the grand manipulator of his own image, the master of what he wanted us to see and who he really was. I found this clip absolutely fascinating, as well as disturbing.

Why this video?

Because it shows Michael, completely candid, as calculative; even down to the pins in his hair, he knows what he wants.

He is controlling what we see. He is manipulating even the tiniest detail because he knows what we want to see, what we want to experience as viewers, as fans.

I'm not saying he's a monster--most definitely not; he is what Deepak Chopra said: 'a tortured soul'--but he wasn't too far from being a Svengali; in spite of his shyness, this man was a genius in terms of Machiavellian intelligence! Matter of fact, Michael Jackson was brilliant.

At the end of the day, he was a performer and had been one since he was in single digits.

He knew how to work us; he knew how to work us all. They say President Bill Clinton is an amazing politician for the sole reason he can adapt, almost like a psychological shape-shifter, to his company's tastes.

Let me end by quoting Marc Schaffel because I feel it is apropos:
"Michael will yell at you, Michael will punish you, maybe not let you do something..." 
Stay tuned.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

I'm only happy when I'm a provocateur.

Negative attention is just as good as positive attention if you ask me...

You know, when I started this venture, I never really expected anyone to read my Michael Jackson meanderings. I hoped people would come, since I write all of this for the fans, but 'hope' is a completely different thing than 'expect'.

Well, check this post from It gave me a great chortle:

(please click for bigger)

Apparently, 'MjloverCiidney' didn't like my Michael Jackson first anniversary post. She called me a 'bitch' and a 'stupid whore' for suggesting that Michael used his newly vitiligo-lightened skin for 'global domination'. I even left her 'shaking her head'.


Of course, I never said any of that. I simply surmised that maybe his record label, Sony Music, misused his vitiligo to whitewash his image and make him more appealing to European/white audiences. You know, a la 'Black or White' being the first single from his Dangerous album when he all of a sudden emerged 'light, bright, and damned near white'. 

And the comments I made in regards to the 'blue eye patch' equating Michael's own desire for blue eyes was more of a quasi-Freudian joke.

That's all I said. No harm done.

If 'MjloverCiidney' ever plans to frequent my blog more than just to haphazardly read a post that appears in the Google search engine, she will find that this blog--while it will undoubtedly pump out unpopular opinions regarding Our Beloved--is mentally stimulating on the Michael Jackson tip.

At least I like to think so.

Truthfully, I like to push buttons; I like to get people going. I can't help it. It's a compulsion, like some sort of one-sided competition with the world.

I hope I don't sound conceited because I'm not. Really. :-D 

I will say, though, has a Michael Jackson subculture that contains some of the most insane individuals I have ever witnessed on the Internet. I'm so surprised, although I shouldn't be, that little solitary Desiree, who has not yet had one thousand visitors, elicited such an angry response. But 'MjloverCiidney' is just the tip of the iceberg, let me tell you...