Friday, May 6, 2011

A note on comments and the future of 'Desiree speaks...so listen...'

For anyone following the blog, here is a heads up: tentatively, at least, I have decided to not permit comments on future 'Desiree speaks...so listen...' blog entries.

My reasoning for this is quite simple. Having allowed people to voice their opinions freely in the past, some, as in this entry's comment thread, for example, have abused that privilege.

I should note to anyone that has read these threads that, typically, I do not delete or block comments from anyone who sees fit to leave them. That is not in my nature.

For that reason, it pains me to have to block all of them.

I realize that some may view this as cowardice or that this executive decision is due to the fact I would like to run my blog like some fascist regime. No, neither are true and that is an important point to understand.

I have decided to do this because I worry that people will mistake this blog owner's interactions with commenters as exceedingly negative or hostile when that is not how I am, nor is it how I choose to be. I consider myself a peace-loving individual, although, because of my personality, I will never not engage in intellectual exchanges or discussions, especially if I feel a position ought to be challenged. 

That is an inalienable personality trait of mine because I am naturally curious and naturally ideational.

The aforementioned comment thread degenerated because someone felt the need to be rude, bombastic, and disrespectful to me and my hospitality; they decided to derail a post for their own political purposes, even when it was not necessary. Frankly, that will not be tolerated. Differing opinions will always be allowed but if one must resort to name-calling in lieu of defending their viewpoint, that is something I will just not permit.

The reality is that most people who read this blog don't comment on it anyway; those in the comments represented about 10 percent of the regulars who actually read my entries. I find it sad that the many who have chosen to read the blog do not want to engage in the exchange of Jacko-related information, and I feel almost like people have siphoned off my efforts and my research without even the courtesy of reciprocity. 

This recent dialogue, I feel, will only make people less apt to leave comments or participate in a discussion due to the blatant mischaracterizations and falsities about myself and my use of information by this longtime reader, who, for the record, I had no problem with until this recent episode. 

Perhaps I am being overwrought but I feel it has put a very unfortunate and unfair negative energy over this entire blog.

Essentially, there is no point of my having comments anyway, both given the nature of this blog content and the reality of Internet lurking. I could have said 'Comment, or Die' but what would that have done? Those who are fearful or easily intimidated will never speak up; it is something that I cannot easily understand because, again, my personality is not this way!

Also of note, this blog is coming to a very grateful end. It is time because I am no longer interested in this subject, at least to the point that I would not be able to update people about the goings-on in the World of Jacko in as effective way as I could when I was more interested. There are days that I do not go into my editor to even work on several-months-old entry drafts because I have just no intrinsic drive to write on this stuff like I used to. I feel completely dejected and unfulfilled.

I will, however, make the effort to finish what I have left, as long as interest remains. And it is as follows:

  • An entry on Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes' relationship, with document links and other analyses;
  • An entry on Michael Jackson's books, including a pictorial of The Boy: a photographic essay;
  • A two-part entry discussing the meaning of Michael Jackson's 1994 settlement;
  • An entry on Jason Pfeiffer (although Jason now has his own site and perhaps would be better at discussing his point-of-view than I would);
  • An entry discussing Joy Robson's 2005 testimony, which seemed to lend more than enough reasonable suspicion that Wade Robson was a intimate 'special friend'

The above list is only tentative and may be missing some potential posts. Trial coverage on Dr. Conrad Murray could also make the list, if my interest does not continue to ebb.

Again, I did not want to make this into something lachrymose, nor do I want anyone to think I am doing this out of fear or anything else. 

If anyone would like to comment on my entries, you can always email me. 

I thank everyone--past, present, and maybe future--for having read my blog. 

~ Desiree

140 comments:

Desiree said...

To everyone:

I have received some emails and apparently there are people who would still like to participate or at least leave thoughts under my entries. I guess did not write "Please share your thoughts" for nothing!

Well, I was concerned people were thrown off by the negative energy that "Len" had brought onto the blog thread and my unsurprising response to it (I am who I am).

The thing that people should know is that everyone has feelings and to be attacked in such a way is unpleasant, especially with regard to one's character.

Anyway, I will try an be more expeditious on these blog entries so people can enjoy them and to get this information out there. We will see where all of it goes... And I hope people are willing to participate and share links and info with each other in the future.

Jessica said...

I'm glad you've decided to let comments remain on your blog. I like hearing other people's thoughts on your entries. As long as you write, i will read! :)

I can't wait for the Brett post and especially the one about Mike's boy book. How did you get those pics? That book is extremely rare and expensive. I wonder how the MJ fanatics will react when they see it. I how they can put two and two together and see that if a person accused of molesting a young boy actually has two books with nude young boys in them, is probably guilty of molestation...or at least the reasonable suspicion that he did do it is greater.

I'm excited to see what you found out about Brett Barnes.

Lady C said...

Desiree:

I'm happy too, that you'll continue to allow comments on your blog. I find the discussion of the material enlightening and fun...I enjoy it. As a matter of fact, I will admit that I have NEVER commented on a blog before until I ran across yours. When I first saw it, it really grabbed my attention and I can't seem to let it go...it's that good! There's no other blog out there like yours. I was excited when I got my first comment response; from J-H-M, aka Jessica (I think) and I've been hooked ever since. But I do understand where you're coming from regarding your feelings as of what happened with Len. As mature individuals, we should be able to discuss the matters at hand without insults and character assassination, and we should be able to agree to disagree. But as I said in my email to you earlier, I'll continue to follow/comment the blog until you say "This Is It!" lol

Well, it looks as if the Conrad Murray trial has now been pushed back to September...the way I understand it is that the Defense wants more time to prepare their side for the possible witnesses that the Prosecution may call?? I wonder if this is the real reason why they seem to be stalling...This whole trial thing is getting further and further drawn out. IDK.

The Brett post will be interesting! lol Refresh my memory if you will... what was the name of MJ's boy book? I may have come across the book in passing, but I've never looked at any of the pictures in it before. Have you heard anything about the new MJ book "Untouchable" that I mentioned in the email?

Jessica:
Yes, I absolutely agree with you about the fanatics not being able to put two and two together regarding MJ being a molester, but you have to remember one thing...they're unable to do this all because he's Michael Jackson!! lol If it was your average "Blow Joe", who was accused of child molestation, and was caught with books containing photos of nude young boys, they'd throw the book at him. Without a doubt, he would be labeled as a child molester...such a double standard.

According to Jason's blog, he's already written a book...he says that there's some things about him, Michael, and Klein the public doesn't know about. Also in regards to Arnie's "madness" he mentions his anticipation of the "Paternity Chapter" and how much truth - Not! is behind it. lol Also, looking at Arnie's FB page yesterday, I got the impression that some of his friends noticed that he seemed to have gone "AWOL" for a little while and apparently didn't give any reason as to why that was when he returned?? His pictures of the Royal Wedding in London are nothing flattering...lol, especially since he claims that he was there instead of Las Vegas? lol He's cracked up!

Just Me said...

Jessica,

I posted the proof he was in Vegas on his blog. A Arnie´s friend talked about it on his other profile (Arnold Fine) and I made printscreen.

Just Me said...

I mean, Lady C lol

Jessica said...

Lady C,

Yes, I was J-M-H, LOL. I just didn't want to keep typing my initials all the time LOL.

conrad Murray's trial has been pushed back? Man, i feel sorry for him. I bet he wants to get all this Michael Jackson stuff out of his life. Well, I guess he wishes he never worked for a junkie. It was bound to happen anyway. It's just surprising to me that Mike didn't technically die at his own hand, but rather, with someone else. Hopefully the trial will show the fans that he was a deeply troubled individual instead of an angel with wings. I wonder why he took drugs in the first place, since he was such a devout Jehovah's Witness and they specifically forbid drug use. Even Jermaine's religion, Islam, forbids drug and alcohol use. I remember watching the news when he first died and the talking heads wondered if Mike started doing drugs to deal with his "boy issues". Makes you wonder if that was his way of coping with being a pedo. Who knows.

Also, it's clear the Arnold Klein is going of the deep end. He was a liar before but now...lying about the Royal Wedding and saying that he tipped off the US military to bin Laden's whereabouts? Too crazy. I suspect the trial is getting to him; maybe he knows that the end is near and that he will be exposed as a Dr. Feelgood and his whole career will be in the toliet, so the prospect of losing his "empire" is making him go out his mind. It's a funny thought.

But why lie about going to the UK if you were really in Las Vegas, especially if people can prove you are lying? Mike surrounded him self with liars and hucksters and that never turns out well.

About Jason Pfeffier, I'm glad he has a blog but this is just my question about him: don't you think it's a little bit strange that he was so reluctant to talk about all of this Mike business, as evidenced by Desiree's evasive answers to our questions about him, and now not only does he have a blog but he claims to have had a book written this whole time? I dunno, it seems a little "weird" to me. Maybe I'm wrong but I find it odd. Not saying he's lying but I just find it odd.

opinionation said...

I think this blog is fantastic and I really hope it does not come to an end anytime soon. Not only are you a great writer, researcher and reporter, but your blog provides great depth on a perspective not found anywhere else.

I hope you continue to allow comments too because they provide additional content to entertain those of us who visit your blog. And do not feel dissuaded by negative feedback because it comes with the territory when you have the courage to offer your honest conclusions about subjects as controversial as Michael Jackson, pedophilias, race, and sexuality.

Considering the amount of energy you’ve already invested in this blog, and considering all the knowledge and sources you have accumulated, it would be a tragedy to see you simply lose interest in the topic. Instead I encourage you to continue to accumulate knowledge and sources through writing your blog, and perhaps one day even write the definitive Michael Jackson biography.

I also encourage you to try to land interviews with key figures in the Michael Jackson debate like Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth or Thomas Mesereau and post them on your blog, either as transcripts or with audio & perhaps even video. You should also seek advertising (Skin bleaching products? LOL!) and solicit donations so that your blog can offer you financial rewards over and above the personal satisfaction it provides.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

I had not heard about the book in question until you mentioned it in your email. Honestly, I don't follow Michael Jackson developments as well as I should in light of having this Michael Jackson blog.

The boy book is 'The Boy', one of the two of Michael Jackson's boy books. I found the picture scans on a pedophile website, one maintained by someone from the Dutch equivalent to the US-group NAMBLA. Keep in mind, though, that the pictures I have are from the less explicit of the two boy books. The more explicit book is 'Boys Will Be Boys' that Michael inscribed. That is the one I'd want to get my hands on because, according to the police, it was 90 percent nude with full-frontal shots of these male youths. But 'The Boy' had very odd shots of boys as well.

You couldn't imagine anyone wanting it unless they were interested in boys. And Michael was.


Jessica:

You know, my evasive answers are due to the fact that the one thing people most want to know about Jason Pfeiffer and Michael's relationship is sexual and that I know the answer to that, or can provide details. I just cannot say.

I don't know why Jason has decided to start a blog. Who knows, really. Maybe he is tired of Arnold Klein. I think he is more trepid about this than you'd think. I find him believable, although he told me it isn't about convincing people.

I guess you'd have to really ask Jason about why he's decided to speak out now. I couldn't really say. I get why a reasonable person would see it as suspicious but I guess I don't see it so much. It's probably because I've communicated with him and I just find him to be truthful, sort of like someone who has a lot of info and just wants to speak on it.


Suzy:

I've seen that screenshot of Klein's facebook page. Why he'd claim that he was in London when he was in Vegas is anyone's guess. I, too, think he is going crazy, crazy with fear.

Desiree said...

opinionation:

Good to see you commenting again. I always enjoyed your posts and hope you decide to comment more in the future.

I cannot imagine writing anything more than this blog about Michael Jackson but I am aware that my content is pretty original compared to vast swaths of vindication blogs out there. Let's face it: those are boring. Mine has grit and tabloidy goodness. That's why people read.

I think people are more interested in hearing the truth about Jacko, even if they disagree with my premise. It's sort of like watching a train wreck. But even Diane Dimond said that she didn't want to talk about him forever.

I feel encouraged that people enjoy this so much. I was taken aback by "Len's" transformation; she should know that I am not homophobic. I enjoy sparing with fans but her turn was unnecessary, I thought.

We'll see where it goes.

What exactly would be the type of stuff you'd like to read? (Honestly, I really don't track Jacko-developments now but I am interested in the Murray trial. Unfortunately I will be back at school when it starts since it's starting in September.)

And, dude, you need to comment MORE. Especially if you are interested in Jacko. I like your posts; I better see you next time around. :-)

Just me said...

Jessica,

Somoene, I think it was on this blog, said that Klein should´ve some disease because he seems confused. He was already known before Michael have known him. So why lying when anyone can see him somewhere else?

Jessica said...

Just Me,

I remember someone saying that he may have had a progressive disease. And maybe that does count for his erratic behavior. Klein is a narcissist so it could be just that he gets his kicks from claiming to wine and dine with famous people. But you're right, why would he lie about something like going to the Royal Wedding?

I still think he's scared of the upcoming trial. I think he didn't realize that Mike's drug habits were going to finally be exposed to the world and he was going to be implicated. Now, Klein is making up all these conspiracies so it can be a smokescreen to cover up his obvious drug pushing deeds and get people to feel sorry for him. I think he wants the fans to back him up because they are already against Murray. We shall see what happens.

Lady C said...

Just me:

That someone may be right; Klein could have a disease that's toying with his mind...After all, if Al Capone can go "cuckoo" in the head because of Syphilis, then it's possible! lol It's not far fetched by any means. He should have known better that his lie about attending the RW in London stood a good possibility of being researched...his biggest mistake was failing to stay out of plain sight completely to lessen the chance of running into someone who knew him. For someone who's trying to fake an alibi, Las Vegas is the last place you want to be seen. lol

Jessica:

Your comment about Klein's presence at the RW in London is an insult just the same as it would be to our country's intelligence team and those who went in after OBL. Klein needs to be locked up in the nut house before he really does some damage to someone!lol The man is really going "Mad". Makes you wonder what 'off the wall' crap he'll say next..."I have conversations with the UFO's!" lol I have to wonder though, what does his former assistant, Debbie Rowe, think about all of this?? Ever since the 2005 trial, she has faded into the background and you don't really see/hear much about her anymore.

As far as Jason is concerned...it will be a "let's wait and see" thing. I do think that he is telling the truth for the most part; but I do sense a little reluctance on his part about exposing what he knows. I did ask him some forward questions on his blog about his sexual relationship with MJ... the questions, IMO, I think were direct but tactful. Now whether he answers them or not, IDK. I asked the questions because honestly, I'm curious like I believe most people are. I also asked because he said on his blog (implied statement) that he was open to discussions and "about a little of everything" would be discussed on his blog...he even said it on Desiree's blog to "ask him" ...so have at it. lol What I would like to know is not necessarily a blow by blow description of every encounter they had, but just a some-what detailed picture of their affair (now if he offers more indepth details, that's fine by me, lol !)...like was MJ the bomb in bed? lol I also asked questions like what his real personality was like behind closed doors, was he a good kisser, were MJ's children aware of the affair and were they exposed to any PDA's between them two, and why was it that MJ couldn't "come out" rather than struggle with sexuality and be at peace, and what was MJ's real feeling about females, and how did he feel about the pedophile stigma involving Michael. So IMO, I don't think the question were trivial, but just honest. I see where you question the reluctance, but a big part of me wants to believe that if there is no truth to what he's saying, he most likely wouldn't stand his ground and put up with the death threats that are hounding him. Perhaps that's shallow thinking on my part...but again, well just have to wait it out and see what happens...I could be wrong. The last time I went to his blog, he hadn't responded to my questions...and maybe he won't?? But he did go on to say in another thread that he didn't expect to get the amount of attention that he's gotten thus far on his blog and will get around to answering most of the questions that he's been asked. We'll see.

Lady C said...

(Cont.)
Desiree:

It was the book, Boys Will Be Boys, that I ran across in passing! Believe it or not, it was at a book fair at my former place of employment that I first saw it. I didn't think much of it at the time, but then again it wasn't something that grabbed my attention,so I didn't stop and look at it. Darn it, now I wished I had.lol

Opinionation:

What you told to Desiree could not have been said any better! Don't give up, and definitely don't give the MJ "fanatics" and those who's "tunnel vision" thinking like Ms. Len the satisfaction...they want Desiree to shut up and/or they don't liked to be challenged.

Desiree, you're doing good girl!

Lady C said...

Desiree:

The book,'Boys Will Be Boys', by Jim Daly, can be found at BuyCheaper.com or Cokesbury.com for a price of $12.79 if you're interested.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

That is not Michael Jackson's 'Boys Will Be Boys'; the one in question has this cover image:

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6390095-L.jpg

It was made in the 1960s by Georges St. Martin, the same editor of 'The Boy'. It is an exceedingly rare and very expensive book of homoerotic art.

As for Jason Pfeiffer, I honestly do not think he is going to answer those questions, the intimate ones. Maybe he's leaving that for his book? I think the reality is that people around Michael Jackson--be they good, in general, or bad, in general--is that they are all kind of shady. I know Jason follows my blog but let's be honest: all of them have some flaws that make them seem suspicious as to motivation.

I've stated that I believe Jason and Michael had had a fling. Jason stated that it was a 'boring fling' and from the more intimate details, it seems that it was pretty casual.

He also stated he doesn't want Klein to really come after him; I was confused but I assume it is because he DOES have lots to say about the Good Doctor, and most of it is less than positive.

Lady C said...

Desiree:

I went to Amazon.com to see if the book was there by any chance, and I may have misspoken to you in my previous posting. I didn't realize that there are apparently two different versions of 'Boys Will Be Boys'. The one I saw on Amazon was from the the 1960's and is very expensive; $645-1500.00. The cover picture is a little different from the one I saw at the book fair but was similar in theme; both had picture of a boy jumping into lake with his other boy friends. Funny, I should mention that the picture of the book listed on Amazon has one of the boys with his mouth wide open with the expression like Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone-lol! But I'm sure that was way before Mac's time since it was written in the 60's.lol
Since the books' picture covers look slightly different, I don't know if the pix inside the book are the same as well.

Jessica said...

Lady C,

Klein is a fame whore, so he would NOT risk not being seen in Las Vegas, LOL! He is one of those guys that has to be around all the beautiful people. So really, I have no idea why he would lie like that. Maybe he forgot about Vegas and was too consumed with the lie about the Royal Wedding? Who knows with that guy!

About Jason, I'm not saying he's lying, no, because I agree with you that he wouldn't have stuck with his story amongst all the death threats. I think his reluctance comes from not trusting people's motivations fro asking him questions. I know in those screenshots that Desiree had on her "explosive proof" post, it seemed like was weary of MJ fans and why they wanted to friend him on Facebook.

Or he could be saving it all for the book. Because it would be like why buy the cow when you get the milk for free if he reveals all now on his blog. So, as you say, we will just have to wait and see. I just want to see the fans' reaction to his truths about Mike. That's what I'm living for. I mean they already tried to deny the semen stains as saliva when it said explicitly it was semen, so I want to see how they rationalize Jason's story away.

I just don't get why everyone has to write a book. Just do an interview or something so I don't have to spend $20 on a new hardcover book LOL.

Desiree said...

An addendum:

I should clarify that I am not saying Jason Pfeiffer is 'shady' as in he's some unscrupulous lying miscreant or any of that. I am saying that his hesitancy to answer certain questions can make people question his motives or his believability when that may not even be the case.

It's sort of like Grace Rwaramba. She did the interview with Daphne Barak and I know it made her 'look bad' when in reality she really was one of the good ones in Michael's life.

That Jason could have already had a book written about Klein or Michael or any of that may make himself seem shady to some people. It could give them pause.

I think that is the nature of the people in the World of Jacko: they are not flawless. For example, this is why I give people like the Ralph Chacon of the Neverland Five, Blanca Francia, or Bob Jones the benefit of the doubt because despite selling stories to tabloids, getting interviewed by Diane Dimond for $20,000, or writing tell-alls, respectively, their Jacko anecdotes are generally solid.

A lot of Jacko fans mark off points for shady backgrounds and it is understandable; however, I believe you have to be realistic. Not everyone is perfect and one flaw should not make you think they are liars or grifters.

Another example: Evan Chandler, for example, could have been an extortionist but that does not change the fact Michael Jackson was a pedophile who'd had an inappropriately sexual relationship with Jordie Chandler. Hell, Evan could have pimped Jordie out to Michael and that would not change the fact the molestation had occurred. A note: extortion generally is INEFFECTIVE if the extortionist is a liar. Extortion only works when the extortionist has 'dirt' on the extortionee, as in Michael's case.

These are the type of flawed characters about which I am speaking.

This is what I mean by Jason Pfeiffer. He's never explicitly stated that he did not embezzle money from Klein, although, to be fair, he did imply that this was definitely untrue. But suppose he did embezzle money; it would definitely be reasonable to think he could lie about other things but, in reality, it does not necessarily mean he was lying about the fling he'd had with Michael.

And I believe he had had a fling.

That was just a clarification.

Desiree said...

Another clarification:

When I say Jason never denied embezzling money, I was just thinking in terms of statement analysis, wherein anything but an outright denial (ie. saying, "No, I did not embezzle money from Klein.") can be seen as suspicious.

For the record, I do not believe Jason embezzled money from Klein. According to sources, Klein has a knack for claiming people steal from him or do other things to him as payback. Jason, obviously, got the brunt of that tendency of Klein's.

Okay, that was the last clarification. I am not helping myself, am I? :-)

Jason Pfeiffer said...

@desiree

Lol, Its so funny how things I thought I was clear about may not be clear to others. I remember you asking if his crap was true and I said "NO." But, for the record, let me make it clear to everyone:

I DID NOT EMBEZZLE MONEY FROM KLEIN.

I do not know where these ideas of his even came from. And I will ask you a few questions:

1. Why didnt he ever pick up the phone and ask me "where is my $10,000,000.00?"

2. Why didnt his lawyer ever ask me? There were plenty of discussions between my lawyer and Klein's lawyer when I was preparing my law suit.

3. Klein never specifically says: Well, Jason has all that money. No, because its another lie. Klein spent his money. Period. He lived beyond his means and has done so for many years. He has 10 cars, 3 homes, etc etc....

As to specfic information regarding sexual acts, yes I am not willing to be totally forthcoming with that information. As I told you, this information came out in a way I was not pleased with, and me adding fuel to the flames is not going to make things easier. As I have always maintained, looking back I would rather none of this information have come out in the first place, however I am stuck with it now and I cant ignore it.... However would it really do any good to list sexual acts? Who is that helping?

Regarding why I am talking, well I will address it in depth on my blog, but I got tired of the lies and bullshit Klein was making up. I also got tired of the public calling me names, including you. What originally set me of and pushed me to contact you was that story from your "source" who was just a Klein mouthpiece. I got so angry that I decided enough was enough. After a over a years of keeping quiet obout Michael, and 7 months of keeping quiet about Klein, I must now talk.

Desiree said...

Jason:

Okay, you did not embezzle money from Klein! You see, I simply try to be neutral, although I've stated categorically that I do believe you. I am just not one those people who will blindly believe anyone. I have to stay as objective as possible.

From our emailing, I find you believable and forthcoming.

Also, I am in the process of writing a post on you and will send it to you via email for your 'approval', as it were, when I am finish. I just want be absolutely sure I have gotten your story correct.

I had a feeling that you were angry about "Adrian", my source. Good; something ought to catalyze you into speaking out after being raked through the coals!

If I talked bad about you, I apologize. You see, I was a Jacko fan, even if back then I found you believable to a certain extent. And Jacko fans are not the nicest people, especially if you claim he was gay. Then they turn into demons.

I have mentioned before on this blog that I think you are quite attractive and better it you with the King of Pop than, say, Paul Camuso, who is not very good-looking at all.

Jason Pfeiffer said...

Sorry if my post sounded mean, but I have learned that you must be very specific in the blog world. I dont really care even that people call me fat. Yes, I am or was, I gained a lot of weight while working for Klein. He pushes people into misery, and food is the only option. LOL, and as everyone knows, he likes fat men around him, so he doesnt discourage bad eating habits. You will be happy to know that I have lost about 80 pounds since leaving his cult. I have done it the healthy way, by being poor and not eating much :) I am down to about 240 now. I will post pictures on my blog just so people wont accuse me of lying about that as well.

Lady C said...

Jessica:

You're right; you have a valid point about the cow and free milk thing. With that being said, I suppose the book that MJ's so-called body guards are writing won't be that interesting since they practically "gave" us the contents of their book in an interview with The Today Show (I think that's the right show)...they already basically let the cat out of the bag. lol

Jason did reply to some my questions on his blog, and I have to respect his denial of choosing not to answer the other ones.

Desiree was on point when she said that an extortionist will not be successful in extortion when there is no truth...MJ knew for a fact that the dirt that Chandler had on him was true and damaging. If it wasn't true, like what MJ wanted us to believe, he would have fought the charges and saw to it that Chandler was punished to the fullest extent of the law for such, as it is a federal crime. Michael knew he didn't have a solid leg to stand on if the Chandler case went to trial.

opinionation said...

I feel encouraged that people enjoy this so much. I was taken aback by "Len's" transformation; she should know that I am not homophobic. I enjoy sparing with fans but her turn was unnecessary, I thought.

She? I always assumed Len was a man. Yes, it can be quite jarring when someone you’ve been friendly with on the internet suddenly becomes hostile. I think it’s perfectly natural to describe a pedophile who prefers children of his own gender as a gay pedophile, while a pedophile who prefers children of the opposite sex is a straight pedophile. I think there’s a politically correct attempt by well intentioned folks like Len to exclude men who like boys from the gay category as a way of sidestepping the uncomfortable fact that roughly 25% of pedophiles prefer victims of their own sex:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/

The vast majority of pedophiles are straight (according to the above link) however considering gays are only about 5% of the general population, being a quarter of all pedophiles makes them dramatically overrepresented. To avoid recognizing a correlation that gives ammunition to homophobic bigots, some well-intentioned folks choose to narrow the definition of homosexuality to consenting adults, but such semantic manipulation ignores a common etiology: Both gay maleness and male same-sex pedophilia are positively correlated with fraternal birth order.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/

As I’ve stated before, I think it’s fascinating that Katherine Jackson carried a colossal FIVE male fetuses (including Brandon Jackson who died shortly after birth) before giving birth to Michael. I think these five male fetuses altered in-utero maternal immune response shaping Michael’s sexuality before he was even born, and as you’ve argued, it was further shaped by the alleged molestation he endured as a child. The interaction between conditions in the womb, sexual abuse in childhood, and the hyper-sexual genes he inherrited from Joe Jackson probably gave rise to his alleged gay pedophilia.

Desiree, I know you deny homosexuality has a biological component, however you’ve stated that Michael always seemed gay. I think the fact that people can seem gay suggests that their gayness is deeply imbeded in their biology, but then I’m largely a biological derterminist so feel free to ignore my bias.


What exactly would be the type of stuff you'd like to read?

I find all of your posts fascinating. If forced to choose I would say Michael’s feelings about his race are the most intriguing. I think the whole physical transformation Michael made is incredibly interesting. Was it just an aesthetic preference or did it go much deeper? How did it originate and evolve. There’s an excellent interview that Michael gave to Jesse Jackson that can be easily found on youtube. It’s divided into 6 parts (the first part is here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNOEk9OjNro

I’ve never heard Michael sound so fluent and intelligent. But what’s especially interesting is how pro-black Michael sounds in the interview. The cynic in me believes that once white America turned on him, Michael was desperately trying to appeal to African Americans because he needed their support during the fight of his life. A more charitable explanation is that near the end of his life, Michael finally did learn to love his own race since they were the ones who remained loyal to him to the end, and that his expressions of black pride were genuine.

Susana said...

Désirée,

I'm glad you still allowing comments!
The forthcoming entries sound very interesting.

Susana said...

I've listened to the interview with Jesse Jackson. Michael sounds articulate and intelligent on it, except when JJ was talking about public schools in poor neighbourhoods and the ratio of books per child and MJ replied “wonderful” or “cool” LOL.

By the time of the trial he avoided his boring repertory on innocence and children. Same thing in the Geraldo Rivera interview.
He sabotaged his own public image playing that dumb character, but it was part of the "mise en scène" to avoid certain questions or to be judged like a regular adult for his odd behaviour.
BUT, I have the impression that he acted more like a regular adult when he was interviewed by “black media” during his career. It's a shame that he didn't show this side of him more often. In the Tele-rabbi book there is some glimpse of his let's say... “political views”. Very very vague, but he expresses some sort of criticism on his country. Not a big deal, really, he did not elaborated, but very significant considering the character.

Just Me said...

Jason,

In fact I´ve already noticed you seem less "fat" (sorry I can´t find a better word).

;)

opinionation said...

I've listened to the interview with Jesse Jackson. Michael sounds articulate and intelligent on it, except when JJ was talking about public schools in poor neighbourhoods and the ratio of books per child and MJ replied “wonderful” or “cool” LOL.

LOL! I don't remember hearing that part. Overall MJ seemed highly intelligent and fluent but there were a few isolated moments of stupidity such as when JJ asked MJ if he felt "stung" by bad publicity and MJ did not seem to know what "stung" meant in that context. At one point MJ said he loved Africa more than any other country implying he didn't know it was a continent, but then he may have just misspoke.

There are conflicting reports about MJ's level of intelligence/knowledge. In the Christopher Anderson book he quotes a source saying there was so much MJ didn't know and even basic facts & words had to be explained to him & Anderson himself says MJ's writing skills were scarcely above a 10 years olds. But another book about MJ by Patricia Eddington praises MJ for writing what she considered spectacular poetry showing outstanding vocabulary.

He sabotaged his own public image playing that dumb character, but it was part of the "mise en scène" to avoid certain questions or to be judged like a regular adult for his odd behaviour.

Yes I think he did play a dumb childish character so adults would think he's like a child himself, so it's perfectly innocent for him to hang out with children. I also think he wanted children themselves to view him as childlike either as a way of luring them in or because he got off on it in some twisted way. I once saw a really creepy episode of Dr. Phil where an alleged pedophile explained to Dr. Phil how he would revert to a child-like voice when talking to children.

BUT, I have the impression that he acted more like a regular adult when he was interviewed by “black media” during his career

Interesting. If so, perhaps it's because he felt he needed to go out of his way to convince white America that he was innocent & childlike & not the stereotypical threatening black male, while with black media he could be more himself. Although even with black media he maintained that fake childlike high voice.

Right after the Bashir interview, Martin Bashir was asked if there was another MJ that comes out when the cameras are not on. Bashir said no, implying his documentary captured the real man. However Lisa Marie said she did not even recognize MJ as he appeared on the Bashir documentary and suggested he was high during the documentary. An alternative explanation is that MJ was not high with Bashir, but rather playing a character to manipulate the media. If so, his efforts really backfired, showing there are limits to his manipulative skills.

Jessica said...

That's an interesting point that you made, Susana. Mike did seem a little more "adult" in his interviews with the black media. And he didn't talk about children as much as he did with the white media.

I think because black people could see through his BS more than American whites. This is not a racial attack on white people LOL, I'm just saying that I think that "sweet and innocent" act works better with them. Mike always seemed more real around his own people, even back in the day. He started cultivating this Peter Pan schtick when he started to bleach his skin.

Remember how Louis Farrakhan criticized Mike in the 80s and early 90s for being soft and effeminate? Many black people didn't like that image of Mike; Chris Tucker even did stand up and said that Mike could really be this hardcore pimp that controls the ladies, and the manchild image was all fake. Maybe Mike knew that he couldn't act like Peter Pan with black people so he acted normal. I read in Afrikan nationalist thinker, Del Jones, book that after the 1993 child molestation that Mike "couldn't come home"--meaning he couldn't return to the black community--because messing with kids is where we draw the line culturally. I think that ties into why he would be more adult around black media; it's because we don't fall for that shit! LOL

Patricia Eddington is a fan, of course she would saw his poetry is well written. She is of the belief that he was a child in a man's body. On the other hand, Carl Toms, of "Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons", said his poetry sucks. I tend to agree with Carl Toms, although I do like the poem "Children of the World". I don't think Mike was an idiot, but he wasn't a rocket scientist.

I just wonder why he went from seemingly normal black man to a crazy fixated pedophile white-asian transvestite.

opinionation said...

I just wonder why he went from seemingly normal black man to a crazy fixated pedophile white-asian transvestite.

I think as he gained more wealth and independence (moved away from his parents and into Neverland) he had the freedom to indulge in his most twisted fantasies, without have to explain his every move to Joe & Katherine.

Jessica said...

Opinionation,

LMAO, twisted fantasies indeed. But he was already indulging in twisted fantasies before Neverland. He turned Hayvenhurst into a veritable play-land as well. He was carving his face, and sleeping with little white boys (already had one boy book but 1983). To be honest, I don't think Mike really cared if his parents saw what he was doing. He probably knew that they'd let him be as long as he was raking in the dough and allowing Joe and Katherine to take part in the spoils. The little "he's a damn faggot" comment from Katherine was probably no big deal.

But seriously, was the bleached tranny thing his idea, maybe a way from him to be "raceless and genderless" allowing him to transcend musical and social boundaries? I personally don't think Mike was smart or clever enough to create a persona with a greater moral purpose. Or was that a result of some mental illness? I wonder. He was pretty screwed up.

opinionation said...

Jessica,

I think the bleaching was partly an attempt to transcend social boundaries because he allegedly told his maid that he bleached himself because blacks are not liked as much as people of other races, but I also think the bleaching was part of some semi-tranny quest to meet some fair skinned feminine beauty standard ala Elizabeth Taylor & Geishas much like his alleged anorexia may have been an attempt to be more feminine or at the very least, more boyish looking. Just as he was allegedly attracted to males at an androgynous stage of development (puberty) he may have desired an androgynous appearance for himself, thus he liked to mix stereotypically feminine traits (Geisha-like skin, extreme thinness) with masculine traits (cleft chin). I don’t know whether MJ was trying to look like a woman or like a boy, but he certainly wasn’t comfortable looking like a young black man, partly because I think, black men were too masculine for him to identify with.

As far as mental illness is concerned, his alleged pedophilia is certainly a mental disorder, and seems to have manifested itself not only in who he was attracted to, but also what appearance for himself he desired. While the general public may have found MJ’s bleached tranny look horrific, his demented sexuality may have found it arousing. It’s also possible that MJ really did suffer from some degree of arrested development (as is common with alleged pedophiles), and the desire to be white represented stunted emotional maturity. As I’ve stated, it was common for African American kids of MJ’s generation to want to be white (preferring to play with white dolls) but most outgrow this stage. MJ by contrast may have been emotionally stuck at this childlike stage of self-hatred.

Some have claimed that MJ had larger mental problems (schizophrenia, autism or even brain damage) though all of this seems highly speculative. His sister Latoya strike me as a little off mentally. Joe was allegedly abusive which may have caused some of the kids to have mental problems or alternatively, the mental problems that made Joe allegedly abusive may have been passed down to his kids genetically.

opinionation said...

Here’s a fascinating two part article by a psychology professor about MJ’s strange physical transformation at how it relates to his sexuality:

Part 1:

http://www.science20.com/j_michael_bailey/was_michael_jackson_pedophile

Part 2:

http://www.science20.com/j_michael_bailey/michael_jackson_erotic_identity_disorder

It’s well worth reading, even if you disagree with some of the conclusions, especially in light of the argument with Len. For example, the author does not consider MJ to be gay or a pedophile, but rather a homosexual autohebephile. I’ve always used the terms gay and homosexual synonymously, however the author defines gay more specifically, not because he’s being politically correct, but rather for more precise communication. This is just a semantic preference and in no way changes the substance of the article.

Lady C said...

Jessica:

Michael being the bread winner of the family gave him free reign to call the shots and to do whatever he wanted without any explaination. Hayvenhurst aka "The House of Horrors", was just the beginning....When Neverland came along it was just that much bigger and more bizarre. LOL Neverland was his ticket to "design his world" so to speak, and to him, there were no limitations as to what he could/could not do. As long as he was making the money and paying all the bills, he was his own boss. I just think that Neverland was just the 'kick' needed to get the ball rolling. I could be wrong, but I think his buying Neverland was just one of the many mistakes that he could have done...the whole "fantasy" world crap not to mention the perversion that came along with it was not healthy. His having that coupled with his mentality was very "Dangerous". It did more harm to him than good. It was already bad enough that he had some major "red flags" that needed special attention to prior to moving to Neverland, but when you have a person who was as wealthy as he was, who could make up their own rules as they went along and not be made held to any kind of accountability, you have a recipe for complete disaster. I think that the saddest part of it was that because his money became a "prized commodity" first and foremost by his family(Joe & Kate), they couldn't see the future danger that Mike was setting himself up for...And they didn't care about Michael, and in return he didn't give a rat's ass about what Joe & Kate thought...Why should he? After all, he was the one with all the money. When money becomes a primary object, all reasoning and rationality goes out the window. Yes, they shouldn't have allowed that to happen. BUT, when you come from a very twisted family like Michael's, and there are no attempts whatsoever to help repair any "damages" nor interest to do so by his parents who should have been his support system, you've got several strikes against you and rehabilitation to a some-what normal life is very difficult...And it's really bad when both of your parents are messed up to begin with. LMP told RJT in his bio about MJ,TMTMTWS, that when things started going "south" with her and MJ, she said that she believed he didn't need to be a parent yet, but instead needed a parent...but while he needed a parent, the parents (his) also needed a parent. Humor me! lol I guess she felt that MJ was too immature and needed some "work" done before moving out on his own, yet alone being a father. However, I'm sure his leaving The House of Horrors was probably an "out" for him finagle his way more into in his sick fantasies more freely. But with MJ's dark and twisted side, Neverland always gave off negative energy.

Lady C said...

cont.)
Jessica:

Jacko was The King Of Manipulation. lol His disguised voice, child-like persona was just an affectation, and if he could influence the public with that transformation, then he could do the exact same thing in his interviews. Make no mistake, Michael could be whoever he wanted to be whenever he needed to be. Now that's not to say that it didn't have any ramifications however. Remember how he got his PR machine and the media wrapped up into making him out to be a huge freak earlier in his career? It all backfired and hung over him like a black cloud throughout the remainder of his career. No matter how hard he tried to rectify it, he couldn't. Because he could be who he wanted to be when he needed to be, he could manipulate the circumstances...and he did it well. Depending on what the situation was at the time, he could do a complete character change to get whatever it was he wanted or whatever he wanted to avoid. Quite honestly, I've never really analyzed Mike's persona in comparison with the black media vs. white media, and I guess it's because he always wanted to put on the child-like persona and come off that way; it was like a "trademark" for him. Again it goes back to him being who he wanted to be and when. However, I do recall his interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, and his overall perception was horrible...he even looked horrible! BUT I also remember the heated lecture he gave the crowd along side Rev. Al Sharpton about the African American and the true history of their contribution to America when he went on the "Mattola" tirade against Sony in NYC. He was very adamant about being black then and a lot of what he was saying was true. I also know that when he did the video "Jam" with Michael Jordan, before they shot the video Jacko didn't have a clue as to who Jordan was, and Jordan was at the top of his NBA career at that particular time. It took one of MJ's "special friends" to give him the 411 on who Jordan was!LOL As for his interview with Oprah many years ago, it was so-so, although I can recall some instances where he came across as having the mentality of a lost child...And again, he had that falsetto voice. Speaking of voice, I have may have heard his true voice once...think I saw it on YT;was his TV special, At Home With MJ (I think), and he was talking about Elizabeth Taylor doing X-mas for him at NL. I noticed that when he was talking his voice was deeper;not the high voice that he usually talks in. IMO, I would have to say that MJ's intelligence varied; depending on what he was trying to do and to whom he was trying to do it to as far as black/white media is concerned. I've never read any of his poems, but have seen a few of his drawings, and they're good! He had a knack for drawing. As a matter of fact, Art was supposed to be one of his strong points while in school.

Sarah said...

Desiree

I have been following the blog but haven't had time to sit down and comment unfortunately. You do seem to be causing a stir! Over on Jason's blog, he is being warned off of you because apparently you are a hater and Jason is a liar. What a crock of sxxt! People are really starting to take note of what you are saying, I am so glad that you have continued with your blog, I am sure you can see that everyone who reads it is so looking forward to the future instalments that you mentioned.
You are right I have had contact with Brian N Everett I met him on another site that has now been closed. He posts some interesting things, I have told you of his claims before, apparently he is well know in Las Vegas and is well connected within his field of PI work. He has unfortunately had some recent personal sadness and has been absent from the net for while but has emailed me a few times and is very helpful with his info. I think he wants to get his message out there, he has some theories which are interesting, he believes that MJ was gay and has been for years, he also told me that he had a coke habit spanning years also.
There are several other theories that he has relating to the Chandlers, he believes that they were part of a plan to extort MJ. It's all part of a bigger picture to keep him in his box so he didn't apparently upset too many people at his record company! I'm not too sure about any of that, but keep an open mind. He has his own website, just google his name.
I am looking forward to your Brett Barnes post, someone asked where he is, he is in Melbourne. I live in Australia as you know and have beens earching for him for some time. In 2005 he worked at the Crown Casino in Melbourne, he quit that job when he went to USA to testify for MJ. I found him on FB once, I will look again and post the link. Just in passing wanted to mention that KJ's recent comments to Alan Duke of CNN made my skin crawl about Blanket's hair, she was asked why she has not had his hair cut, to which she replied that Michael liked him to have long hair. Just take a look at the kid, he looks very much like Brett Barnes as a child! I'm not suggesting that Brett is the biological father, just that it is creepy that MJ was trying to create the same BB look in his own son! I use the term "Own son" loosely!

Desiree said...

opinionation:

Len's was the PC version of things; I, too, see no far-reaching and potentially dangerous implications in the use of 'gay' or 'straight' in conjunction with a pedophile's gender preferences. Michael was both in terms of his sexualities--both gay and a pedophile--but he was a gay pedophile when we describe only his pedophilia.

I don't see how that is so bad to say, I really don't... My main contention with Len's argument was that it was, frankly, stupid.

Yes, I do not believe in inborn homosexuality; I am not a biological determinist and I will ignore your bias! ;-)

I am trying to understand why any homosexual would ever insist that they were 'born that way' when that merely affirms that something is amiss in their biology, especially given their statistically tiny population size.

The reason I disbelieve in inborn homosexuality is due to the fact its presence is inconsistent with the goals of evolution. The presence of varying degrees of bisexuality is also a strong indicator of socialized or conditioned or non-inborn homosexuality (or whatever you'd like to call it; I am just stating that it is not encoded in DNA and then ready to be expressed, etc.).

I find the 'fraternal birth order' hypothesis specious. How does one explain the presence of lesbians? Do they have more brothers? Do they have more sisters? Lesbians are frequently left out of the discussion; I'd suspect it's because people don't believe lesbians are 'real' homosexuals.

'Born that way' advocates also tend to bring up twin studies but that proves illogical as well. When you measure identical twins, if homosexuality was inborn wouldn't both sets of identical twins be gay, seeing that they have the same genes (let's ignore the largely controversial wing of epigenetics, which are non-genetic yet biological, to a degree)? (I know that these researchers also study fraternal twins, which is just bad science. fraternal twins are very closely related siblings but they are NOT twins!)

Until the hard evidence presents itself--and evidence that can withstand common sense scrutiny--I will err on the side of homosexuality being an environmental preference and socially-based. It is faulty to rest one's hat, so to speak, on something that has yet to be proven.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

opinionation:

I should mention, although the source may be somewhat biased (it was a more politically right-wing book), I read that gays during the sexual revolution were the sort of orchestrators of the 'born this way' notion; previously, it was just seen as a behavior or was socially created. The goal, as stated in the book, was that they didn't want people to look down on their lifestyle in such a way, or call them disturbed, or that they needed to change. I believe around that time gays were forced to 'change' via incarceration in mental hospitals and then subjected to these insane (no pun intended) treatments.

I cannot remember the title of the book. That's not convenience, just so you know; I genuinely cannot remember the title! It's been years since I've read more conservative books...

As for 'always seeming gay', I don't believe that is hard science. Yes, I think for most of Jacko's career he 'seemed gay', especially when you look back. But he didn't 'seem gay' until he was in his teens.

'Seeming gay' is largely anecdotal; when gays say they've felt gay since they were young, I wonder how much of it is the retrospective application of emotions or labels and how much of it was actual intuition and feeling. We all do this, after all.

It's unfortunate to me, as someone in the sciences (I'm a biology major), that you have people who argue things from biological standpoints and they have not a clue about the actual science of it. What would be the purpose of a sizable homosexual population existing for millennia? What would be the purpose of those types of genes being carried and passed on given the goals and purpose of evolution? Also, we must understand that if the hypothetical 'gay gene' is in gays, how would it be passed on if gays have no interest in the opposite sex? Had they forced themselves to lie with men or women? So is the propensity for bisexuality a reproductive strategy that's 'gay specific'? But why do some gays never cross enemy lines, so to speak, and have no desire to do so?

Additionally, why do lesbians and gays--who have no desire for the opposite sex--still have the 'heterosexual' aspirations of producing offspring? (This would be a question to the Bill Maher hypothesis that was mentioned a long time ago in another thread, wherein Maher suggested they were here as 'population control'. Another one for that would be, why did homosexuality exist when the global population was very small.)

There are many questions that poke holes in the current status quo of homosexuality's alleged biological genesis. I think the current rhetoric is largely intellectual sophistry.

That Michael always seemed gay to me (at least since his teen days) could be hypothesized without regressing to the biological argument. Perhaps he displayed the stereotypic sensitivity or effeminacy we all associate with gays (it does seem like many gay men are, to a degree, effeminate in some way or another).

As for pedophilia, the vast majority of the human population is heterosexual, although I question how the study determined what constituted 'pedophilia'. Did they choose convicted child molesters? If that's the case, many will be straight, due to the fact girl victims statistically report more than male ones. That could explain why most 'pedophiles' are heterosexual.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

opinionation:

Ken Lanning, in his piece, delineated between preferential and situational. The former has a sole preference for youths while the latter sort of 'goes with the flow' and does not have a primary interest in youths. He stated that the preferential child molester--or the pedophile--usually had boy victims. They also had child pornography, which mainly features boys, and they also were the ones to participate in sex rings, which primarily had boy victims.

I should note that I am fairly liberal in terms of this and generally see no harm in non-coercive, non-dominative sexual contact between early pubescents (at the earliest) and adults and would advocate US consent laws being at 13.

Lanning's experience and the fact that most boy-loving organizations--or all of them--are man-boy suggest that pedophiles are most accurately described--holistically--as gay. And this practice, of course, goes back 1000s of years and across many cultures.

I should note that I find the DSM-IV's pedophilia criteria sort of broad and, outside of being interested in pre-pubescent children, I don't know if pedophilia is a 'mental illness' but a preference, especially since homosexuality is no longer considered an illness. I think there should be some helpful delineation between the mental illness aspect--fixation on non-reproductively viable youths--and the preference aspect. Also worth noting is that the application of pedophilia, as with other illnesses, is discretionary and can vary depending on the mental health professional.

What I'm saying, to lasso this in, is that I wonder if those types of studies are utilizing 'pedophilia'--the terminology--accurately. We could list blow-by-blow why more pedophiles would seem straight but just the history, the crime statistics of preferential molesters, and the lack of 'girl-loving' groups (I am not saying they don't exist but not in the way the boy-loving ones do) seems to reasonably suggest that pedophilia is a homosexuality derivative (or, in the case of Ancient Greece and Western society, a foundation).

Desiree said...

(cont.)

As for the article you linked, I read that a month or two ago and thought the author--yes, a Psych professor--was completing deluded, and there were commenters who disagreed with some of his conclusions.

One he claimed that Michael was trying to turn into Peter Pan because of a picture where his ear looked 'pointed'. I mean, yes, he's had plastic surgery but if your whole theory is founded upon a picture of an ear that could possibly be distorted by headgear or that he used a piece of ear tissue for medical purposes, your theory can easily be dismissed.

I could list more on why his theory was just ridiculous but why bother, honestly? I believe the most accurate description for Michael Jackson without all of the intellectual trickery and just looking at publicly available evidence would be to say he was a gay pedophile, or gay hebephile, if that is less specific because Jacko liked boys of all ages, it seems. Sure Emmanuel Lewis was older than he appeared but he looked like a first grader most of the time they were 'special friends'. He liked boys from 6 to 17 and then you get to his liking of legal men.

He just liked males.

As for the gay vs. homosexual semantics, I can reasonably understand the difference between the two in terms of cultural connotation, although they are essentially the same. The author of those pieces basically says 'gay' is the non-criminal, non-psychologically abnormal males loving males behavior, while 'homosexual' is more of a descriptor describing same-sex attraction.

It definitely seems politically correct and moot but I understand what he's saying. But even with that, I believe it is most accurate--at least in Jacko's case--to describe him as a gay pedophile, or, as I stated to Len, a pedophilic homosexual (meaning 'gay' here, though), because he was interested in males of all ages.

I should note that the author relied on stereotypes and cliches in that he suggested most gay men like manly men or men who do not fit the category of youth. That is just not true. Many gays like 'boys', and by 'boys' I mean twinks and other very youthful-looking and sometimes effeminate male partners. God, just peruse gay pornography! The term 'chickenhawk' is also a gay slang for older men who like very young (looking) male partners. Gays are pretty liberal in terms of age and that is not a jab at all; it is just the truth. Whether that has to do with Western society's youth obsession--which was present even in Ancient Greece--or something else, we can only speculate.

Jessica said...

Sarah,

So Brian N. Everett is the P.I. that left the comment on Alex Constantine's blog? Good to know. I think there is many people that know a lot about Mike that just haven't spoken out. Obviously he is right about Mike's coke habit, since they did find coke debris in his panties during the 2003 raid on Neverland. I'd like to hear more about this P.I. He could be right in that there was extortion but as we all know extortion only works when the extortioner has real usable dirt on the person being extorted. Evan Chandler knew that Mike was a pedo.

All of a sudden, Jacko's Wackos have come onto Jason's blog. Personally, they should leave him alone. There are trying to say "prove it" to Jason but they don't extend the same "prove it" mentally to the Stephanie Mills's, the Ola Ray's, and the Shana Mangatal's of the world; they just blind faith believe that Mike was with them, even if the proof shows they are all full of crap! LOL. And of course they want to silence Desiree. I think its funny how the Wackos talk so much shit about this blog in forums but never ever come here and provide good evidence in how Desiree's research is wrong. All talk with no walk.

Opinionation,

I think you give Mike too much credit. I don't think he had a higher moral purpose when he told Blanca Francia that blacks aren't liked as much so that was why he was bleaching his skin. HE just didn't like being black, period. He thought black was ugly and under-educated. He called black people "splaboos" and Bob Jones said his whole family didn't like blacks. I believe that is true. I don't think it had anything to do Mike being regressed; he just flat out didn't want to identify as black, masculine or feminine.

Lady C,

Mike's world was screwed up, big time. There was no way that he would be normal. Joe and Katherine only cared about money, so they allowed anything and everything to be done to Mike and his siblings if it meant that they would become the Black Kennedys. And I can't take Mike's rant against Mattola; that was complete BS. All of a sudden he wants to be a black man, after he spent a decade and a half being a deformed white female alien? Russell Simmons said Mike was just mad his "Invincible" album bombed. No celebrity supported him on that one, LOL.

Lady C said...

I found something online that made me laugh my ass off. It may be old news, but I just learned that an almost replica of MJ's Neverland will be built at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. I bet that the Venetian and Treasure Island just to name a few, are are glad they didn't get chosen for this "circus"...after all, MJ was notorious for trashing hotel rooms in LV. LOL Wow, the Jacko fans are really going to have a field day with that one! It will be a "mecca" for the die hard MJ fan who can go there and pay homage to their "angel of God"! lol Along with that there will be an MJ lounge, a museum of some of his memorabilia, etc. It's been approved by the Jackson Estate and is definitely a sure thing. Cirque du Soleil's president said that as of 2013, it will be "The place" for the ultimate MJ fan...I guess it can also be said that it will be "The place of Hell" for parents with children! Parents with children in Vegas, if you happen to run across this place, turn around fast and run!!! lol It could it get any more pathetic?!

Wonder what Klein thinks about it; I'm sure he's already gotten wind of it...just another feather in his hat to make more shit. lol

http://www.kikster.com/story/content/3245/HIDE-YOUR-CHILDREN-LAS-VEGAS-BECAUSE-MICHAEL-JACKSONS-INFAMOUS-NEVERLAND-RANCH-IS-HEADED-YOUR-WAY

Lady C said...

Desiree/Jessica:

I just hopped over to Jason's blog, and I'm laughing my ass off at all the MJ fanatics that are coming out of the woodwork...It's unreal; their thinking and rationalization. Looks as if Jason may have a WWIII on his hands.

Ask the MJ fanatic what does "Wacko Jacko" stand for...We Are Crazy, Kooky, Obsessed...Jack Asses Cannot Keep Open Minds. This perfectly describes their mentality! lol

Rebekah said...

Desiree,
I'm glad you decided to allow comments again! The conversations are always interesting.

Everyone,
I really enjoy reading what you have to say, even though I don't comment much at all. Thanks!

opinionation said...

I am trying to understand why any homosexual would ever insist that they were 'born that way' when that merely affirms that something is amiss in their biology, especially given their statistically tiny population size.

Because it gives the gay rights movement moral authority comparable to the civil rights movement in that gays like blacks can claim they are discriminated against based on what they inherently are, as opposed to some lifestyle choice they made. They also just believe it’s the truth; most gays would probably say they felt they were different from the earliest age they can remember, often preferring to play with dolls while the other boys played with trucks for example.

The reason I disbelieve in inborn homosexuality is due to the fact its presence is inconsistent with the goals of evolution.

Being born gay doesn’t necessitate genetics, as someone could be born biologically gay because of the biological environment in the womb and not because of their DNA. And there are lots of genetic conditions that persist in our species despite being inconsistent with the “goals” of evolution: Fatal diseases, chromosomal abnormalities like Downs Syndrome.

Homosexuality is not even necessarily inconsistent with evolutionary pressure because many gay men become fathers often because they are more attractive to the opposite sex than the typical man (look at all the women who desired MJ) and those who don’t may have compensated for their lack of fecundity by helping to raise and protect their nephews (who may share copies of their gay genes). If gays are more likely to be pedophiles, it’s possible that they were the ones who volunteered to babysit all the nephews (and the nieces who tagged along), thus allowing the gay man’s straight sister (who carried her brother’s gay genes) to have more surviving offspring because of the extra “help” he provided keeping the babies alive long enough to spread the family’s gay genes to the next generation, where once again the gay boy pedophile would grow up to “help” his straight siblings raise as many kids as possible.

Of course the overwhelming majority of gays are non-pedophiles, and they too might have helped raise their nephews because they don’t have kids of their own or through financial support (since gays are often occupationally successful; MJ certainly helped support all of his nieces and nephews)


The presence of varying degrees of bisexuality is also a strong indicator of socialized or conditioned or non-inborn homosexuality (or whatever you'd like to call it; I am just stating that it is not encoded in DNA and then ready to be expressed, etc.).


I use the term genetic (as opposed to inborn) because as I’ve stated, one could be born homosexual because of the prenatal environment and not genes. Do you agree that handedness is genetic? Most people are left handed or right handed (just like most people are gay or straight) but some are ambidextrous (just like some are bisexual).

opinionation said...

I find the 'fraternal birth order' hypothesis specious. How does one explain the presence of lesbians? Do they have more brothers? Do they have more sisters? Lesbians are frequently left out of the discussion; I'd suspect it's because people don't believe lesbians are 'real' homosexuals.

The fraternal birth order hypothesis seems to be empirically confirmed by repeated studies of right-handed men and well quantified (the odds of a boy being gay increase 33% with each older brother) and it appears to be an entirely biological prenatal effect (adopted older brothers have no impact, nor does it matter whether a boy is raised with his brothers). I know of no comparable effect for lesbians; female homosexuality seems to be less biological/genetic in nature. For example a study of identical twins raised apart found a genetic basis for male homosexuality but oddly, not for female homosexuality. I sometimes to think it’s because the line between gay and straight is much less defined for women (women constantly to look at same sex models, give each other hugs, have emotional intimate friendships and gush about each others good looks and good bodies; if men behaved the same way they’d be considered gay)

'Born that way' advocates also tend to bring up twin studies but that proves illogical as well. When you measure identical twins, if homosexuality was inborn wouldn't both sets of identical twins be gay, seeing that they have the same genes

No one is saying homosexuality is 100% genetic, but I think there’s strong evidence that genes predispose some people to becoming gay under the right environmental conditions. What these environmental conditions are remains a mystery though it seems the prenatal environment matter a lot. How much impact social or cultural environment has is something that can only be answered by more research.

'Seeming gay' is largely anecdotal;

But you can often tell when a man is gay from the way he talks and his mannerisms, even when he insists he’s straight. The fact that gayness is so pervasive it can be recognized in an instant tells me that it’s more than just a socially acquired preference, but an intrinsic part of a person’s being, and thus genetic; otherwise gaydar wouldn’t work so well.

One he claimed that Michael was trying to turn into Peter Pan because of a picture where his ear looked 'pointed'. I mean, yes, he's had plastic surgery but if your whole theory is founded upon a picture of an ear that could possibly be distorted by headgear or that he used a piece of ear tissue for medical purposes, your theory can easily be dismissed.

The author admitted that he was uncertain whether MJ was trying to look like Peter Pan per se, but rather he was arguing the larger point that MJ may have belonged to a rare class of child molesters who are aroused by the thought of themselves as children having sexual relations with children. This theory provides a parsimonious explanation for so many of MJ’s most enigmatic behaviors (the obsession with kids, the plastic surgeries, the fake childlike voice & image). It may even explain the alleged skin bleaching (white kids enter puberty later than black kids so perhaps MJ associated whiteness with more prolonged childhood) and the spectacular talent (people with abnormal sexuality often have abnormal talents). When one simple theory can explain so many disparate and unusual facts, it at the very least passes the Occam’s razor test, especially considering there really is a clinical population of child molestors like the ones described in the article.

Caroline said...

OMG all of you have mental issues! :S especially DESIREE...
I mean, all this blog makes me thinks that you truly ENJOY all of this (sexually, masturbated) , and about the sex fanfic you wrote, no comments... is too much obsesion... sorry girl but you need help.
Please go outside, meet people, and have a life for god sake.

And Jason Pfeiffer, you and Klein have not dignity.

Atte,

Caroline.

HateStupidPeople said...

Caroline you´re the one who has mental issues, you and other fans because you persist with a man who you believe is a liar. Normally nobody pay attention to a man who lies, right?!

Jessica said...

Caroline,

You are the one obsessed. You need to get over Michael Jackson. He is dead, dead, dead as a doornail. For almost two years now. All you crazy fans do is talk about Wacko Jacko in your little fan forums, discussing with masturbatory fervor who he was with sexually. That's all you people care about, and you ignore the fact that not one single woman has ever legitimately been believable, and not one single woman was ever discovered by the media that ripped Mike's life wide open.

Face it, sister. He was a gay pedophile. He liked young boys. You people are so ridiculous. Al the evidence is here, but you REFUSE to see. What more can any one do with crazy fans that will blind faith believe that he was some angel from God. He was not. He was a drug addicted, self-hating, gay pedophile. All of this is proven.

That's the problem with you stupid fans, you act like anyone that thinks or knows that Mike was a pedophile is the Devil incarnate. That is ridiculous. This belief that we sane rational people have is in no way indicative of our personality and I hate to break it to your fragile, infantile mind but most people that aren't fans of Wacko Jacko do believe he was a molester. Our belief in his guilt is based on evidence and common sense; yours is based on blind faith derived idol worship.

No dignity because we believe Wacko was most definitely a child molester? Please. It is you with no dignity because in your and other fans' demented minds, you would seek to harass Jason Pfeiffer. Newflash: he is sticking to his story, and he is telling the truth. There has always been gay rumors and now that there is an actual gay man (there are probably others, no doubt about it) who is not only public but also is believable and a nice man, it destroys the masturbation fantasy you have created around Wacko Jacko. HE WAS GAY. If you choose to disbelieve, well, you're only hurting yourself.

No one here is obsessed with Michael Jackson. You losers spend all your time talking about make believe women and shit that happened in the 1990s. Hey, hey! It's 2011! Get the hell over it! Get a hobby. Stop obsessing over a lying pedophile!

Desiree is just putting out the facts, the "hate" facts.

Lady C,

LMAO at your Wacko Jacko acronym! The fans have been swarming Jason's blog. I know they hate it that there is a real live man that had gay relations with Mike. But they all know the truth, but they hate to see it: there has never been any women, there has always been gay rumors, Mike was always surrounded by young boys, he paid at least two boys multi-million dollar settlements over child molestation, he always had boy sleepovers. It's really that simple, but they refuse to see. I bet they will hate it when Desiree posts the pictures from his gay and naked boy books. I guess this will be more evidence that they refuse to see. Sucks to be that crazy obsessed with a dead guy.

Lady C said...

Caroline & All the Jason Blog "Hijackers"

You all are REALLY sad!!!! As the world knows it, Michael Jackson is dead and is NEVER coming back. Yes, I know that is traumatic for you all, but stop crying yourselves a river as you've already done that...Instead, build yourselves a bridge and GET OVER IT!! MJ's dead...life goes on. If MJ was gay, which I really do believe he was, than that was his choice. The man has been gone for going on two years now, and from the looks of it, there have been NO credible women to come forward to say they've had relations with Michael! NONE whatsoever. Could it be perhaps that there aren't any?! Also let me remind you that Michael Jackson was NOT God by any means!! Stop treating him that way...that is an INSULT to the King of All Kings. He was human just like you and I, and with that he had some flaws...he was not perfect. Period. If he was a pedophile, which based on the evidence that I've seen and from what history the public has seen about him, it's a good indication that he was a pedophile. MJ had a very unusual likeness for children, especially young boys, and he let it be known. To like/love children is fine, however; there are certain lines that are not to be crossed...When you take a child into a hotel room, seclude them in that room with only just the two of you; for not only minutes or hours, but DAYS at a time, and your parent(s) are having to beg you to see their own child...something is very wrong with that. That my friend is not normal. Being a parent myself, I would never dream of allowing that to happen with my son who happens to be a young boy as well. MJ had a history of making this kind of "kiddie honeymoons" a habit... that's not right at all. Whether he was doing something illegal with the child or not, no one knows 100% sure, BUT what I do know, is that regardless of what he & the child were doing in the room behind closed doors with no chaperon, he made himself look incriminating.
So he wasn't found guilty of the molestation charges...that doesn't mean shit! Are you that ignorant and naive to know that there are MANY criminals in this country alone that go scott-free because a jury has acquitted them? You'd be amazed of how often that happens! I truly think that if the shoe was on the other foot -- meaning, MJ was just a regular guy off the street and he was accused of molestation coupled a very unusual likeness for children and being seen out in public every where to turn with children, including the "kiddie dates", I strongly think that you would see things very differently?!?! All of this hype is because of only who he was, and that was nothing but a very well known celebrity. Again, he was not a God...yes, he did some wonderful things to help others...yes, he gave to charities...yes, he wrote some touching songs...yes, he was very concerned about the Earth, and yes, he was very talented, but anyone;including you and I, could/can do any one of those things and more.

Death happens...move on.

Desiree said...

opinionation:

I am unconvinced.

Let me just say that I understand your comparison between the 'moral authority' gleaned by the gay rights movement from claiming inborn homosexuality; however, the genetic basis for skin color has been identified whereas the so-called 'gay gene' has not. I understand the comparison but I think it is fallacious. To note: being gay is not the same as having black skin or brown skin, nor is it the same as being a woman; you can disguise the former but not the latter. It is a behavior, as far as we currently know, and the others are genetically-based.

I am always chaffed by those comparisons; I think it is a cheap attempt to one-up one's interlocutor with an 'appeal to emotion' fallacy. I cannot change that I am XX or black, yes, even with a sex change or skin bleaching cream, a geneticist will always know my original form. Honestly, you cannot do the same with gays.

I noticed how you flitted from 'genes' to 'prenatal environment but not 100 percent genetic'; is that semantics or convenience? My use of 'inborn', I suppose, is a sort of catch-all term to mean that it was something that did not come about through conditioning or anything else socially-derived, that it was completely out of the control of the person who is 'gay'.

I don't now how clear I can really be. I hope it is clear enough.

I should explain the basis of my reasoning. Yes, I find that a 'sexuality' that is manifestly abiotic is incompatible with the goals of evolution.

You mention congenital disease. I should correct in that Down's syndrome can only be passed on if the afflicted mates--the cause of the disease is due to an older-aged egg (note: women have all of the eggs they will ever have from the time they are born) not dividing correctly following fertilization. It has nothing to do with genetics or genes, the origin of the disease; this is why the risk of giving birth to a Down's-afflicted baby increases with age of the mother. Aneuploidy disorders (usually the body will reject these embryos) or polyploidy disorders (which is indicative of trisomy-21 or Down's syndrome) are not genetic. If the extra chromosomes are there after meiosis, there really is nothing one can do about it, except abort. However, if the Down's syndrome individual is kept alive, it would be advisable that they not pass on that chromosomal abnormality to offspring. I think if someone with Down's has a child, the likelihood of that kid developing the same disease is about 50 percent.

What I'm saying, to reiterate, is that those are not genetic. That an afflicted fetus can survive gestation does not make it compatible with evolution.

Anyway, that humans have chosen to keep alive their weak and afflicted goes against evolution, as well; it is against the survival of our species to keep alive someone with Down's syndrome (assuming they go on to mate) or mate with individuals who are afflicted with dwarfism or have other faulty genes.

Unlike animals (some species having the ability to literally 'sniff out' faulty genes), the best we can do is to (a) conduct genetic testing on individuals; (b) conduct genetic testing on the fetus; and/or (c) wait until the child is born to see if the disease is physically manifested (especially if no faculty to test genes is available).

Desiree said...

(cont.)

opinionation:

In centuries past, humans used to bash their deformed infants skulls against rocks or throw them off cliffs. Of course, this is illegal now and would constitute murder and other terrible things, but this was a way that--I guess you could say more 'evolutionarily-sound'--individuals used to prevent 'bad genes' from passing on and infecting the population. Animals, of course, do this; however, we have been endowed with reason.

What I am saying is, humans directly block the goals of evolution by passing on faulty genes and keeping genetic mutants alive (to note, mutation is not always negative; most the time it is not). Who knows, we may have been able to telepathically communicate by now if, since the Dawn of Man, we had the ability to genetically test/screen and then restrain our 'humanness' to abort or rid ourselves of the 'weak'.

It sounds grotesque, of course, like something being advocated by the Nazis but the point is quite clear, I think. I've always told myself that if I was screened and my child was genetically-afflicted with some terrible disease that would prevent them from being able to live normally, I would abort; and if a child was born with some congenital disease only evidenced from birth, I would not seek life-support or helps.

I think it is only fair to the child and, I guess looking larger, it is good for our species.

So, why humans reject evolution for sentimentality is beyond me.

Being exclusively gay is against human evolution and the goals of species, which is to be successful via natural selection, which, for us and most animals, can only come about through sexual reproduction. How is an attraction to one's own sex supportive of this?

To note--and I know 'born this way' advocates always bring this up--there are many 'strange' species in the animal world, some who exhibit behaviors we view as synonymous with homosexuality, but there has been nothing to show that these behaviors are inborn or supportive of the species in terms of evolutionary goals (maybe besides the Bonobo example, perhaps?). In actuality, there are a variety of reasonable conclusions to be made with regard to these sort of behaviors: they are social, as in the female Bonobo chimps engaging in what we'd consider lesbian sexual behaviors for social connectivity; they are transient and merely situational, as in some male gorillas coupling off when a female is unavailable but immediately switch back to normal behavior when a female is available; they are mutagen-based, as in there is a problem with the animal and it is atypical of its species.

Most animals reproduce sexually, which involves the combination of two opposing genetic components--dubbed 'male' and 'female'--to form the new individual; some animals are parthenogenetic but they still engage in sexual behavior. The whiptail lizard, for example, is an all-female species but come reproduction time, a female of the population will act in the male role.

Unless gays can be like hydra, sea stars, or bacteria, reproducing through budding, regeneration, or binary fission, respectively, the lifestyle is antipodal to what is normal for humans and most animals. For this reason, I do not believe in a genetic basis and an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality in human beings.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

But let us argue that you are correct, that prenatal environment and some genetic components induce homosexuality, that being gay is inborn. Given their statistically small population size and what I've delineated just now, you'd have to be honest and say that homosexuality must be mutagenically-originated.

The prenatal womb environment has some sort of mutagen 'infecting' the male fetus and turning him 'gay'? I know that gene expression and environment are linked, so, if the prenatal womb environment possesses this mutagen or some component that induced the transcription of the gay gene, is it reasonable to say that if we isolate this component in the womb, we could also create a drug or chemical to prevent or block the womb environment from creating this component or having this component affect the fetus, respectively?

This would only confirm that being gay is a 'mistake', Opinion, and I don't know how any of this helps gays. Yes, science can ameliorate our understanding but one must never forget the basic principles of biology.

And, again, this is why I cannot accept the 'born this way' argument. It just does not make sense to me, unless one admits that homosexuality is abnormal for the human species.

This is why I believe homosexuality is simply on a continuum of sexual behavior for human beings, as Kinsey noted decades ago. Only recently have gays defined themselves by their sexuality. In Ancient Greece, they saw pederasty and male homosexuality as a behavior, not as an immutable trait. Is it antiquated of me to say that I think the Greeks were correct?

And all of this ignores the lesbians! You have found no analogous studies of lesbians because no one believes--including you--lesbians are 'real' homosexuals and, as such, do not bother to study them the way they study males. Of course, this could be due to our Western patriarchy but that's only speculation.

Statistically, there are more exclusive gay males in comparison to exclusive gay females; this much we know is true. However, why is it more reasonable to think that lesbians were environmentally created but gay males not so? Even lesbians think they are born gay. Are they wrong?

Again, with the evidence of bisexuality, and now, your belief that lesbianism is not inborn so much as male homosexuality is, I can even further disassociate myself from the conclusions! Similarly, I question the statistics of a 33 percent increase in homosexual likelihood per older brother one has. Why was Randy Jackson not gay or Marlon? A 33 percent increase would mean that a boy's probability of being gay is much closer to 1 when he's brother #3 and is for certain when he's brother #4. Marlon was #4 but he's not gay. Randy was #6 and he's definitely not gay.

Does the count start over when a 'gay' brother is achieved?

There is a woman out here in the US who has 20 children, many of whom are boys. They are on TV sometimes and the older boys--teenaged--are not gay.

To me, it just seems as if this is some ridiculous hypothesis, regardless if it can be repeated. The old truism is 'if ye seek, ye shall find.' I just question the research.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

I think you rely too much on out-in-left-field reasoning for some of your conclusions; some of them are totally stereotypical.

There is no data supporting that women find gay men more sexually attractive than the typical (or heterosexual) man. Most women want a man who is masculine; hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity are seen as attractive to women and men, respectively. While I don't think the majority of gays--although a very significant proportion are--are effeminate, I wouldn't say most gay men fit this ideal man archetype that women desire.

If Michael Jackson had not been a rich and talented superstar, but some Average Joe with a bleach job and botched plastic surgery, no woman would find him attractive. It's just because he was a celebrity.

I should mention and stress that I am not a believer in biological bases for anything (or most things that are) behavioral in humans. Even attraction in terms of masculinity and femininity are culturally-decided. I think that gays may seem gay (and it is a stereotype to think that gays all are effeminate so it would be spurious to base an entire argument on the fact that gay males seem the same 'all over' in terms of this effeminacy) does not automatically suggest a biological basis for male homosexuality.

While I did say gay male effeminacy is stereotypical, if we compare that to what we immediately take to be stereotypical lesbianism--a feigned, artificial masculinity--and then take on the assumption that lesbianism is 'non-inborn', why not the same for these gay males? How do we know this effeminacy, like a lesbian's masculinity, is not 'picked up'? That the gay male does not relate, and thus imitate, his mother, like the lesbian perhaps imitates her father (or, more likely, becomes the opposite of what her mother is)? These respective gays then, expectedly, seek the opposing side for completion.

I think there are much more convincing and logical arguments for the side of homosexuality being a sexuality on a continuum than inborn or genetic or whatever you'd call it. Yes, I think these stereotypical traits are conditioned from early childhood, although the memory of gays, like all people looking into hindsight, must be taken with a grain of salt in terms of accurate scientific research; anecdotal evidence usually does not stand up to scrutiny.

I just do not agree; I am a nurture proponent all the way, yes, in spite of my being a student of biology. I think it's a slippery slope to get into the 'everything is biologically based' realm. And if moral authority is gleaned from claiming biology, God, will we ever be able to say anything to anyone? What about those 'predisposed' to kill? What about those predisposed to be obese or have lower IQs? Are not all of those against societal goals and/or human evolution? But if they are biologically based would it not be cruel to go against any of them because these people would have no way to improve their conditions?

It's a dangerous ethically, finding biological bases for behaviors or certain traits. Luckily, I believe, most everything is environmental.

This, again, is why I also disbelieve in IQ.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

As for Michael Jackson's pedophilia, Jordie Chandler's uncle, Ray Chandler, suggested Michael was a fixated pedophile, in that he had to be child-like or youthful as part of his relating sexually to boys.

I think it's dead on; so what we have here is a gay fixated pedophile.

This notion is backed up by people who say Michael had this child-like thing going on; Jason Pfeiffer, for example, said he did not know whether Michael was a child molester (he keeps an open mind) but he did have a child-likeness about him. This was also said by Stuart Backerman, who worked for Michael and stated that if the allegations were true, it was probably due to Michael's 'experimenting' with these boys like a peer would.

Psychiatrist Stanley Katz, who had interviewed the Arvizos, stated that he didn't know whether or not Michael was a pedophile (he never interviewed Michael) but he thought maybe he was a regressed 10-year-old and, as he says, 10-year-old boys will look at porn and masturbate with their friends.

I don't know, however, how many 10-year-old boys will perform oral sex on their friends.

We definitely know that Jacko liked kids, boys specifically, so I think the fixated pedophilia is likely. I don't know how much that ties in with what the professor wrote but I think it's the least 'complex' hypothesis, with regard to Occam's razor.

By the way, don't you think the right/left-handedness argument is a bit lax? Both of my parents are left-handed and my mother is ambidextrous (she uses her left to write normally but if writing on a white board, she will only use her right hand). I am right-handed and so is my twin sister. But I am ambidextrous when I paint my fingernails but not when I write; after much practice I learned how to do this.

Maybe handedness is genetic but ambidexterity seems learned. I know in Southeast Asian, I believe, no one was left-handed because, traditionally, that was the hand one used to wipe themselves after defecation. So use of the left hand was forbidden. I think there is no left-handed people in that region because of that cultural taboo.

I don't think it is anything like sexuality, unless handedness is also learned.

Desiree said...

That is what I don't understand about these fans.

I clearly laid out this evidence of semen staining on his bed, etc. and, yet, they still doubt it. I just don't understand it, really. I seems so opposed to reason and logic to deny what was delineated in a court document.

I am not doctoring these items, I am simply showing them.

It is something I will never understand.

As for Michael's boys, it does not matter if was never convicted; that means nothing. He was rich; he was famous. No one wants to put a celebrity in jail, let alone one who looks as sad and pathetic as Michael Jackson.

No one would have ever put the King of Pop in jail, not the Moonwalker, the guy who made Thriller. It just couldn't happen; he was our home-grown eccentric.

I find it also bizarre that they would immediately assume Jason was lying, especially when he's decided to speak out. They are definitely worried that their guy, Jacko, was having intimate gay contact with another man.

No woman has came out, and bodyguards alleging that there were women Michael was seeing does not count. We want tangible women.

I am sure Jason is not the only man Michael was with in his life. That Jason stated it was a friendship with sexual elements, is it possible that some of Michael's other friendships with men--and he was always friends with (just) men--had sexual elements?

I think it's possible.

Personally, I find the discussion of his pedophilia much more interesting than all of this. Jason Pfeiffer has a viable voice and he's probably one of MANY but Michael's love of boys is somewhat legend.

opinionation said...

Desiree, I will probably respond in more detail later, but I wanted to make a quick clarification about the 33% increase in probability of being gay per older brother. I don't think this means that you add 33% to the probability of being gay per older brother, because, as you noted, by that logic, boys with 3 older brothers would have a virtually 100% chance of being gay. Instead I think it means that the probability of being gay is 33% higher than it would have been had the male had one less older brother.

In other words, lets say a typical first born male has a 2% chance of being gay. The probability of the second born male being gay would be 2% increased by 33% of 2% or 2(1.33)= 2.66%. The probability of the third born male being gay would then be 2.66% increased by 33% of 2.66% or 2.66(1.33)= 3.54%.
Similarly fourth born male would 3.54(1.33)=4.71%, fifth born male would be 4.71(1.33)=6.26, sixth born male would be 6.26(1.33)=8.33% etc. As you can see from the math, a male would need about 14 older brothers before we could predict with 100% certainy that he was going to be gay, based on no other information than fraternal birth order.

Of course with someone like MJ, we have a lot more information to draw conclusions than just fraternal birth order, however based on fraternal birther order we know that MJ was far more at risk for being gay than the average man, because he has way more older brothers than the average man, however the risk based on birth order alone was still less than 10%.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

Feel free to respond later, but, yes, I think that 33 percent thing was odd. And that you had to choose an arbitrary beginning point to make it seem feasible just makes me feel like it's a ridiculous concept. Why did they not clarify this?

Now, is there always a base number? Is it ever zero, as in 33 percent of zero and so on with subsequent brothers? In order for that birth order hypothesis to work, we must presume that there is always some number n--regardless of the size of n--that is in existence from brother #1, and so on.

Of course, I can be wrong, however, I strongly feel there is no such thing as fraternal birth order, and that that is nothing but politically-motivated research.

We will simply go in circles here, Opinion. Doubtless to say, you (well, maybe not you but those in agreement with your overall viewpoint) would probably dismiss studies correlating sexual abuse history with homosexuality. I know gays dislike that, or the other stereotypic findings (bad relationship with father, for example, which seems very strong) correlated with their homosexuality.

I guess, at the end of it all, it depends where you choose to align yourself.

I choose 'nurture' ti describe the phenomenon of homosexuality, whatever that entails and regardless of the feathers ruffled and the knickers knotted. Homosexuality is on a human sexuality continuum; it is not set prenatally or biologically or genetically, as of now that we know, and will probably never be determined. Of course, unless some research team is backed by a powerful organization (or government) with an agenda and, consequently, distorts science to conform to politics and public sentiments.

As we all know, wrong or right, science is never politically correct.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so wrong in saying they aren't 'born gay'. How is this bad?

Desiree said...

I should add, has this mysterious number n been isolated by these researchers? From what value of n did they base their findings regarding the '33 percent increase' factor? Surely there must be a somewhat universal starting point for them to have made such a broad proclamation of a 33 percent increase in gay likeliness with each older brother.

And aren't they looking retroactively for this factor, after talking to men who've already ascribed to themselves homosexuality? Hmm...

I've also heard of research suggesting that gay males tend to have larger penises on average compared to the heterosexual male. And, I ask, what exactly would be the purpose of having a larger penis for a gay man? I suppose I could hypothesize why but without the risk of sounding stereotypical and lewd.

And do lesbians--although we think their formation is due to socialization--tend to have longer or more tactilely sensitive digits or other parts linked to their stereotypical modes of sex?

Also, I question the 'gays are more creative, richer, better' etc. studies that tend to be used to deify gays. I am sure that Da Vinci and Michelangelo probably did have male or boy lovers (I am not saying pedophilia and homosexuality are the 'same' here but Europe had always been libertine when it came to boy-loving and viewed it as a homosexuality derivative, as do I); I know that Salvador Dail--my favorite artist--was definitely homosexual, in a way, despite his marriage to Gala, his muse.

But I don't think this means that being gay means one has a higher likelihood of being 'creative'. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation! Likewise, does the 'gays are more financially successful' alleged truism only work in developed countries, or can it be gleaned from this statistic that even in the poorest areas of India or Central America or Africa, the wealthiest men are more likely to be gay?

I hope none of these seem like strawmans but I am trying to understand some of this reasoning, Opinion, and some strawmans, if these are strawmans, tend to get people thinking.

Lady C said...

Desiree:

That was very interesting to read what you had to say regarding genes and Down's Syndrome...never have looked at it in the way you described before. I always thought it had more to do with an abnormality in one of the chromosomal pairs. My mother had a friend who was older in age and had a baby who turned out to have DS, and what you described about the increase in age; older eggs, and faulty egg division makes sense...Interesting to know. I like Biology; it's very interesting, but in my years of schooling I never got into it deeply the way you have. You definitely know your stuff and you have a way of challenging things that makes one really question 'the theory' of what is being taught vs. what it actually 'is'. Having said that,it makes sense at to why the MJ fanatics are going ballistic...they feel threatened by something they can't understand nor make sense of...For some people, the truth is frightening.lol

I do look forward to your posting of Brett Barnes and MJ's 'boy books'. Have you been able to locate a copy of the "Boys Will Be Boys" book? I wonder if it can be found in the public library, or is it one of those books that has now been banned because of the stigma behind it relating to Jackson? I hope you're able to locate it to use for your posting...I'm sure the MJ fanatics would "hate" for you to get your hands on a copy!lol

A few of questions I have that are off the subject: In your firmest opinion, what you think the outcome of the Conrad Murray trial will be? Do you think that it looks suspicious to the public because of the 'constant stalling" of getting the trial started? IF Murray is found guilty, do you think he'll do a day behind bars? I personally don't think that he will. I think that from the MJ vindicators point of view, they probably suspect that Murray has something to hide/ card up his sleeve is the reason the trial's being delayed; he knows he's guilty.

Another question: does anyone know the whereabouts of some of Jacko's former employees; Norma Staikos and Wayne Nagin since his legalities? Are they still looming anywhere? lol I was reading an article by Maureen Orth (Vanity, I believe) and she said that if anyone knew a lot of information about Michael, it would be Nagin; as she put it,he was one of the few people who had no problems saying no to Michael. I know that he was his COS for many years but was terminated w/o severance pay like Bob Jones. I hear talk about Bill Bray all the time, but very little about Nagin. I heard it through the vine that he wasn't in the best of health, so I don't even know if the man is still living?? Was Nagin on good terms with MJ after termination, do you know? I wonder if he'll ever come out with a book on MJ?

Being from Las Vegas, what did you think about the MJ "Neverland shrine" being built at Mandalay Bay Hotel/Casino?...Sick!

Lady C said...

Desiree:

I've been LMAO over the 'insane' responses on Jason's blog. It's really 'smokin' wouldn't you say? LOL LOL There are so many "Anonymous" comments there it isn't funny...wonder if they're all the same person. I know a lurker or two has gotten busted. lol

Caroline said...

Jessica said...

You are the one obsessed. You need to get over Michael Jackson. He is dead, dead, dead as a doornail. For almost two years now.

---

Ok so I'm the obsessed... excuse me?? hahaha
You don't know me and have the audacity to say that.

Please, the same for you! YOU NEED TO GET OVER MICHAL : YOU, DESIREE, LADY, AND THE OTHERS...

Get a life, losers.

Atte,

Caroline.

Caroline said...

Lady C said...

Caroline & All the Jason Blog "Hijackers"

You all are REALLY sad!!!! As the world knows it, Michael Jackson is dead and is NEVER coming back.

-----

All the world knows that... you people are so dumb hahaha
He is dead, CORRECT, life goes on, I TOTALLY AGREED!
SO PLEASE STOP BEING PATHETIC AND GET A LIFE!

Atte,

Caroline.

PS: Desiree, how many orgasms you have today thinking in child/pedo romance, you nasty ass?

Caroline said...

DESIREE

75. One of my dreams is to marry and have children with a gorgeous male model.

----------

PLEASE NOOOO, POOR CHILDREN :s
It's disturbing ...can you imagine have a pedo mam?

Marry with a gorgeous male model... hahaha wake up honey, you are FUCKING UGLY in my sincere opinion, like your heart, no matter the tons of make up.

Remember, get a life ;) it's no too late for you.

Atte,

Caroline

opinionation said...

Actually Caroline, I just looked at Desiree’s picture and she’s stunningly beautiful. If you have a problem with her blog why don’t you criticize it rationally? Hurling childish insults just makes you Michael Jackson fans look desperate, frightened and unintelligent, and damages your hero’s legacy by association. After all, the best way to judge a leader is to look at his followers, and with fans like you, MJ’s not looking so good.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

Unfortunately, I will never be able to get my hands on 'Boys Will Be Boys' unless I can get down to the UCLA library (fat chance) or experience a windfall and be able to buy it for myself. According to the police, that one had full frontal boy nudity and was 90 percent nude.

'The Boy' has a lot of naked white butts in it as well... hmm...

About Murray, honestly, I don't know how he will fare at trial. I don't think he should be convicted because Michael was a junkie, let's be real. However, I just feel that he may, not because he should, but because he killed the King of Pop. I think it's unfortunate but I think that is what will happen. Hopefully, he will just get probation and/or lose his license. He shouldn't be in jail.

I have no idea about Wayne Nagin. Wasn't he the one who claimed that Michael brought women into Neverland? If he said that, then how credible is he?! ;-)

The only way I'd go to Neverland Las Vegas is if someone bought me a ticket to see it.

Interesting, I remember that Ian Halperin said that the Estate was planning to build a Neverland in Las Vegas right after Michael died and while Halperin was promoting his book. I guess he was right! He was also right about Michael's Alpha-1 antitrypsin lung condition, although the autopsy report did not state it.

Alpha-1 is not normally tested for so it is no surprise they failed to note it. However, Jacko had the lungs of a smoker, even though he did not smoke (discounting his alleged marijuana usage). This is characteristic of Alpha-1. He did mention that the Jacksons or someone would doctor the autopsy to make him look healthier, and I think the autopsy was doctored.

And, of course, Halperin also stated he met with Jacko's gay lovers. He quotes Joe Franklin, a TV personality, who says Michael absolutely seemed gay when he was meeting him in the 1970s.

Halperin's a sleazy character but he's been right about certain things, although the molestation bit in the book is total crap. He provided no new info and was just rehashing the spin of Taraborrelli and other already published works.

Desiree said...

Caroline:

I am amazed by your projection.

How is it that you can call me a pedophile and say that I am aroused by whatever the hell you think I am aroused by, but a man who was single and womanless until his mid-30s, had books of naked boys, had fleets of male-ONLY 'special friends', insisted on sleeping in the bed with these male 'special friends', and is then accused of molesting these 'special friends' is not a pedophile?

And how is it that I am ugly but a deluded black man who bleached his skin to a ghostly pale white, whittled his nose down to the size of a pencil, modified his face to look like a melting Joan Crawford, and wore truly ridiculous wigs was not hideously ugly?

I mean, my God, you must live in an parallel universe where everything is in opposition to normal.

Please, get back on your medication and when you've calmed your little head, you may return to debate the information set out on my blog like an intelligent human being.

And, no, Caroline, you are the one who is crazy and obsessed; we are not like you. Only a rabid Jacko fan would personally attack someone for simply writing about what she's found in court documents and transcripts, in news articles and books and video clips.

If you don't like what I present here and think I am wrong about Jacko, by all means, correct me. No one has ever tried to do this.

Desiree said...

opinionation:

Thank you. ;-)

Any thoughts on the biological basis of idol worship? I always think some people are more susceptible to it than others. I feel pretty rational.

What I noticed on Jason's blog and other Michael Jackson blogs is that these fans are so hard-headed about the evidence and will just deny it. It's sort of strange in a way. It's sort of like religious people: no amount of science can prove to a fundamentalist that the Earth is older than 6000 years and that evolution is real.

I am trying to figure out is it stupidity? The signs to 'gay', 'pedophile', 'drug addict' etc are in neon lights but it doesn't matter to them; they won't believe it. A blog I linked to in another thread had the writer thinking that the semen in his bed was saliva from Prince and Blanket.

I mean, there has to be an answer to this irrationality...

Caroline said...

@ opinionation

Actually Caroline, I just looked at Desiree’s picture and she’s stunningly beautiful.

----

Hahaha please stop kissing Desiree's nasty ass
Are you blind?
I think GOLLUM is more beautiful than PEDOree.


@ PEDOREE
If you don't like what I present here and think I am wrong about Jacko, by all means, correct me. No one has ever tried to do this.

---

BECAUSE YOUR BLOG IS A JOKE! like you, and your (4?)followers... you're just an PEDO-BIPOLAR-ATTENTION WHORE


Atte,

Caroline

Lady C said...

Desiree:

In light of Murray's trial, I don't think that he should be held responsible for murder; IMO, it was more neglect than anything...don't think that it was done maliciously. BUT, Michael Jackson did play a big part in his own demise...anyone with any common sense knows that ANYONE having a long history of taking various strong drugs like he did, is bound to end up dead eventually. That's a proven fact that a lot of the fans can't seem to grasp. Wow, a mind is a terrible thing to waste! lol Yes, it's unfortunate that his life ended the way it did, but it happens. I'm sure his death and how it happened was heart breaking for a lot of his fans, but Michael was also accountable for what happened to himself as well. It's just too damn bad that his fans can't fathom that. Michael Jackson died a long time ago; it was Murray's involvement that made it official. I'm not exactly certain how it will end, but my gut feeling tells me that he will probably be found guilty...as you've said before; no one wants to put a celebrity in jail, no one wants to let what they believe to be a killer of a celebrity go free. But Murray will probably not do the full 4 years. I believe his prison time will be very short and his medical license revoked...won't be the 'extreme' that the fans are hoping for. If that does happen, I believe they'll be very disappointed. I could be wrong; we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

As for Wayne Nagin, I'm not sure if he was the one that said MJ had women at NL. I just know that he was one person, according to Maureen Orth, that would say 'no' to Michael. As she put it, he was expecting to be called to testify in the trial, and he was thought to know quite a bit about MJ's "private world".

Caroline:

Your "empty" response to all the valid things that I said about MJ speaks volumes of your intelligence. Outside of slinging mud, you failed to comment or acknowledge the points that I said about MJ...no logical defense whatsoever. Seriously, could it be that the points that I made are too far fetched for you to comprehended? Are they threatening to you in any way that you can't provide a logical answer?? They're logical points that anyone with a normal functioning brain could reply to...However; based on your previous response, you couldn't provide an intellectual response based on the information that I stated about MJ if it came up and bit you in the ass...that's really telling. Reality can be a bitch sometimes, huh?!

The truth of the matter is, If you don't like what's being discussed here on this blog, and the issues are not to your liking, my suggestion to you is to find that MJ "vindication" site that is for you and stay there! The issues discussed here are what they are; Desiree hasn't done any sugar-coating, and I don't think she'll start now. Time is too precious to be wasting on someone with your mental capacity. True, we don't always see eye-to-eye on matters, but the beauty of having an intelligent discussion, is that you can "agree to disagree". Sure I was fan of MJ a while back, however; my feelings for him are not the same. While he was not perfect, he did have some major concerns that unfortunately should have been addressed a long time ago. His life's tragedies give the Kennedy Family a run for their money. Perhaps if he had addressed those issues early on, he probably would still be here with us today.

So with that said,IF you can find it in you, Caroline, MAYBE you can come back with an intelligent/rational response?...Then again maybe not...Something to think about.

Opinionation:

Response to Caroline...Ditto!

Caroline said...

@ Pedoree "100 thing about me"

13. I have a very, very obsessive personality. --> YES GIRL, you're obsessive right now.

18. Sometimes I write dirty Michael Jackson fanfiction. ALL OF IT IS SLASH (ie. homoerotic)

--> DIRTY ASS!!!

74. I have been told that my voice is quite sexy over the phone. My dad told me once!

---> Oh, the pedo thing is IN the family!. That is disgusting, maybe your dad jerked off that day.



Atte,

Caroline

Caroline said...

@ LADY C

The truth of the matter is, If you don't like what's being discussed here on this blog, and the issues are not to your liking, my suggestion to you is to find that MJ "vindication" site that is for you and stay there!

----

No thanks!!! It's fun here.
Darling, my suggestion to you is: GET A LIFE
you don't like Michael but you still post in a blog about him? that is sooo contradictory.
If i'm obsessed you're a bunch of haters.

Atte,

Caroline

Lady C said...

Wow!...Such cowardice!! All logical reasoning has been thrown out the window never to return.
Poor,poor Caroline...

opinionation said...

LOL Lady C! Caroline’s really having a melt down! Love how MJ fans are so terrified of Desiree’s blog that they are regressing into panicked incoherent hysteria. I’m literally eating popcorn laughing my head off as Caroline continues to self-destruct. LOL!

Desiree said...

Apparently Blogger was down and some comments were removed. Who knows if they will return...

Desiree said...

Too bad... I was going to 'address the idiot'.

Caroline said...

Hello pedo girl! ;)
Get help!

Lady C said...

Desiree:

It's all good...no use in wasting your time and intellect with those who have no common sense. A recap of what I said before the deletion...
Ms. Caroline, who was "the idiot" here earlier and whose comments along with mine a few others got deleted, did not/could not answer logical questions about MJ if it came up and bit her in the ass! When she was confronted about his bizarre and very unusual likeness for children; the "kiddie dates", the hotel room isolations with children unchaperoned for not only hours or minutes, but for days at a time, parent(s) having to practically beg MJ's security team to see their own children, and his continuous parading of young boys in public; was something she could not fathom. I said that weather or not if MJ was doing something inappropriate with those boys behind closed doors, is not 100% certain. BUT what is known is that most people who have any kind of any common sense would see that that particular kind of behavior makes MJ look very suspicious and incriminating. It was being very irresponsible on his part....Then only to come back years down the road to say that you slept in a bed with many children??

As a result of poor Ms. Caroline' s melt down, she was apparently hesitant or felt threatened by the points that I stated about MJ....She couldn't answer/defend them in any way, but instead decided to sling mud at you and several others on this blog in retaliation to what I/we said concerning MJ. Even when you extended the invite to her to challenge you on your research of Mr. Jackson, she couldn't find it in herself to do such. I guess as the saying applies,"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Another thing she failed to see is that with any conversation or discussion forum, the beauty of it is that an individuals have the right to "agree to disagree", which tells you that not everyone will see your point of view eye-to-eye. What I can't understand is why hasn't any of the "fans" taken you up on your offer for them to challenge you on any of the research that you've done?...If there's any thing out there that is conflicting with what you have come up with, it should be challenged...you never said that you were afraid to be proven wrong. That in of itself speaks volumes. Anyone with any kind of mature intelligence would agree with that. Also shooting someone down by saying that they are disgustingly ugly based on pictures that they saw of you is very IMMATURE!...Are we regressing to our years of childhood fits here?? lol

People like her, you just have to just overlook and ignore when the sling mud and hurl all kinds of unnecessary insults. Unless she can find it in her and can come back and act like someone with some kind of sense and comment on issues intelligently, I wouldn't pay her any mind. She's enjoys the attention and feeds off of it. I told her that your blog was just that, your blog...and if she did not like the issues that were being discussed here, to go find that MJ "vindication" site that is to her liking and stay there. But of course she couldn't do that as she puts it, "No thanks!!! It's fun here". All reasoning and logic went out the window never to return...It's obvious that she's not working with a "full deck".

Opinination also commented on "the melt down" via Ms. Caroline, and I couldn't have agreed more. BTW, you are very pretty; your pictures tell that.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

I managed to see the other comments that were until about 1PM yesterday when Blogger had a complete 'meltdown' (cause? unknown; someone suggested it was the Communists!). I think it's unfortunate because I had spent time discussing Halperin's research.

So, that annoys me.

But if I can reiterate quickly: I find it interesting that a Neverland is being built in here in Las Vegas and Halperin stated this when he was promoting 'Unmasked'. If we will recall, that was almost 2 years ago.

Halperin also stated Jacko had Alpha-1 Antitrypsin disorder and needed a lung transplant. Although the usual treatment in terms of transplantation for Alpha-1 would be a liver transplant, Jacko's lungs were in bad shape according to the autopsy; it looked as though he'd been a longtime smoker. Remember, Quincy Jones said Michael always talked about how he had some blister on his lung... Alpha-1, it should be noted, is not normally tested for by coroners.

So, apparently Halperin was getting good information with regard to Jacko; I, too, believe that the autopsy has been 'sanitized' to a degree. He accurately predicated his death, although that seemed like a lucky coincidence. Who knows, perhaps he actually did go talk to Michael's gay lovers; I know he interviewed Joe Franklin--a TV personality big in the 1970s--who said of course Michael was gay.

I just received one of Michael's 'homoerotic' books in the mail; I got it for super cheap on Amazon. And looking through it, I cannot imagine anyone but a man interested in virile young males or males, in general, being interested in this particular title. The author is very well-known in the gay community and his photography was in mainstream gay pornographic magazines several decades back.

It's very gay. Just more circumstantial proof. I've taken photos and will show them in the series of posts about his books.

I should also note that Christopher Andersen, who wrote probably the best biography on Michael Jackson, got information about when this recent 'royal wedding' was to take place; he was told this Spring a year and a half ago.

My point in stating this is that there are lots of insiders willing and bursting to spill the beans on celebrities, especially people as weird as Jacko. Before Len was excised, she was fortunate to have contacts with the dirt on Jacko.

As for Caroline, as a troll, she wants to be fed. Personally, her comments are an ineffectual and piss-poor substitution for a rebuttal to my pieces.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

That she is incapable of defending Jacko (and, to note, no fan has stepped thusly to defend this guy in light of my findings) against the breadth of research laid here on this blog tells me that what Jacko has done is indefensible and I, at least, am shooting in the right direction.

Most of the fans know this. This is why they hate the site.

I guess we should give Caroline a bit of credit: at least she has not bored us with illogical sophist boilerplate so characteristic of other Jacko fans: "Michael was an innocent man-child; he would never hurt a child!"

For that, Caroline, I thank you.

Unbeknownst to her, she has helpfully revealed the psychosis and unrepentant stupidity that lies at the heart of this unyielding and intellectually dense mass of fanatics.

She cannot debate with substance because the very essence of accepting Jacko's word on anything means blind devotion, not reason or rational thought. She just cannot do it.

It does not bother me in the slightest that she slings 'pedophile' or 'ugly' this way. As per one of her deleted comments, she compared my looks to Gollum from the 'Lord of the Rings' films. I know that when your opponent resorts to hyperbole in comparisons, you should take what they say with a grain of salt.

And that I will do.

Again, I just don't understand how, to her, I somehow conform to 'pedophile' but Jacko does not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder--well, I can say with no hesitation that most people look better than Michael Jackson--but the pedophile thing is just strange.

Interestingly enough, and it's tangential but relevant, I used to go onto a site where I 'sparred' and debated people about political issues; these people loathed me, as I was in the tiny political minority there, and they came onto my blog and discovered my pictures. You'd think that to further attack me, as they had already been doing, they'd bring up my looks. Not one of them did, though; the sample size is not incredibly large, I suppose, but I am assuming my appearance was not something they could attack?

Whatever the reason, the only person who came on here and attacked something as trivial as appearance in lieu of actual argumentation, besides Caroline, was another Jacko fan.

Basically, it's just ridiculous.

Caroline, stick to the topic or you'll be deleted; it's as simple as that.

Jessica said...

Caroline,

You are a fucking moron. All per usual with all Wacko Jacko fans, you'd rather be an idiotic troll than have a solid rebuttal to any of the hard "hate facts" that are on this blog. I have a suspicion that you are incapable of providing credible information that refutes Michael Jackson's OBVIOUS gay pedophilia.

Shit, you probably know it's all true and you've just went over the mental precipice, reducing yourself to a babbling, drooling village idiot. Sucks to be you! Wacko Jacko = gay pedophile!

Desiree said...

Jessica:

Wacko Jacko = gay pedophile!

LOL! I laughed hard at that. Glad you called Caroline a 'fucking moron'; I was trying to be high brow.

Let's just say I agree.

Lady C said...

To All:

The issue of MJ's children seems to be a mystery that most find intriguing...myself included. Perhaps it wouldn't be that way if, MJ hadn't insulted the public by telling them that they are his biological children when it appears that they're not his. According to some of the commentaries on Jason's blog, there are those who cannot seem to make the connection that MJ's three children are possibly not his biologically. Having sisters who are of mixed race myself would agree; African-American father and white mother...you can definitely tell that they are not completely white but bi-racial. MJ may have changed his skin from black to white, however; his DNA couldn't change. It's like the saying, "You can take the girl out of the hood, but you can't take the "hood" out of the girl". The same concept applies to MJ as well. MJ, prior to "surgery days" had very strong negroid features; there's no denying that that the man was African/American. They're also genes that would continue to stay in his DNA that would most likely be passed on to his offspring regardless of who the mother would be.
I'm not convinced that those are his biological children...many of his friend "associates" have come forward telling that there is a chance that they themselves could be the father of his older children, Prince and Paris....Based on the appearance of them, that's a possibility. While it is possible to have a light skinned offspring from a bi-racial couple when one of the parents is black, it doesn't happen 2 or 3 times in a row, and not to the lightness of Prince, Paris, and Blanket I might add....tha't completely or almost unheard of. However there was article that I read many years ago, of an English bi-racial couple; black mother and white father who had twin boys, and one of the boys was white and the other was black. There was also another case of twin girls that this happend to as well (saw their picture on the internet - so cute!). To my knowledge on both cases, there was no "alteration" of the gametes of both parents of any kind to bring out this particular outcome...they were conceived naturally. It happens but is extemely rare! Desiree, do you know anything about this and how common it is? Outside of natural conception, it's been shown that there are many ways that one can conceive a child, and with today's technology I guess that's possible....And having money can make just about anything a reality.
By law his children are his, but most likely through surrogate means only....Not biological from the natural conception that you and I know it. I don't think that he used his own gamete for the reproduction of his children. Years ago when he was asked if he would ever have children of his own, MJ said that yes, he would have children and a family of his own, but he would not procreate his children...One can take his statement as an "implied" meaning that his family would happen through either adoption or surrogate means.

Lady C said...

Desiree:

I only mentioned the comment of MJ's children only because of the 'ignorance' that was shown on Jason's blog from the fans that can't seem to 'get it'...As this was something you plainly explained but was deleted along with my comment when the Blogger went down yesterday.LOL

opinionation said...

Desiree,

People consider Down’s syndrome genetic in the sense that it is caused by an extra chromosome (i.e. extra genetic material). I agree that it’s not like other genetic characteristics that get passed down from generation to generation through the normal hereditary process; instead it’s a genetic mutation related to the age of the mother and is seldom passed on by the afflicted offspring.

Homosexuals might also be genetic mutants, as politically incorrect as it is to say. Of course mutations are not always bad (we could never have evolved from monkeys into humans without them) however technically they are biological errors, particularly if they don’t reproduce (or help genetically similar others reproduce). On the other hand, homosexuality could be an evolutionary strategy (see the gay uncle theory I described above). I don’t know if homosexuality is genetically good or bad, but I do think it has a genetic (or at least biological) component. There are several reasons for taking this view:

a) Sex is such a biological phenomenon (men get erections, they ejaculate) so it’s hard to believe any form of sexuality (gay, straight, pedophile) does not have at least a partly biological explanation.

b) Heterosexuality is clearly genetic. Women evolved to find men sexually arousing and men evolved to find women sexually arousing so that the sexes could reproduce and vice verca. This proves that finding a man or a woman sexually arousing is a genetic phenomena. Since we already know that genes explain why women are attracted to men, the simplest explanation for men who are attracted to men is also genes. The fact that it doesn’t serve an obvious evolutionary purpose is no reason to dismiss genetic explanations because it could just be a genetic mistake (these are common).

c) The more I learn about studies of identical twins reared apart, the more convinced I become of the importance of nature over nurture. It’s not just that identical twins reared apart resemble each other physically, but they also resemble each other emotionally, temperamentally, cognitively, and even politically; moreover the older we get, the more dominant genes become. You seem to have hinted that you don’t think intelligence is genetic (saying you don’t believe in IQ), but this view seems untenable given that intelligence could not have evolved via natural selection in humans unless it was highly genetic (i.e. smarter primates out survived dumber ones and passed on their cognitive advantage genetically)

opinionation said...

Desiree

I do agree that it’s inconsistent to argue gay men are born gay and gay women are not, but I can only go where the empirical evidence takes me, and so far the case for innate lesbianism is less strong. I suspect that will change as research continues to accumulate, however I’ve always suspected that sexuality is more flexible in women making them harder to put in neat categories for scientific testing.

You feel that homosexuality is probably on a sexuality continuum rather than biological, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Height is on a continuum, yet people are genetically tall or genetically short. Race is on a continuum yet people are genetically black or genetically white. Thus sexuality could also be on a continuum with genetic gays and genetic straights. Of course genes interact with the environment. A man with the genes to be 5’10” if reared in a first world country might be 5’7” if reared in a third world country. Similarly, someone with genes to be bisexual under one set of circumstances might come out exclusively homosexual either because of fraternal birth order or the social environment (or both). Someone with genes to be attracted to very young looking adults under normal upbringing, might become attracted to prepubescent children after sexual abuse.

I agree that it’s dangerous ethically to find biological bases for behavior but the truth is often dangerous. However it would be intellectually dishonest for one to downplay empirical evidence for moral reasons.

opinionation said...

Desiree,

With respect to fraternal birth order, I chose 2% as the base number since this is sometimes said to be the prevalence of homosexuality in the general male population. If anything firstborn males would probably be a bit below that since the general frequency is based on the average man and the average man has more older brothers than the average first born man.

As to why the study didn’t clarify what they meant by the 33% increase; maybe they did. I don’t have access to the study, just the online abstract. Normally there’s no need to clarify what one means by a 33% increase, however because they’re talking about a percentage increase of a percentage, ambiguity can creep in.

As to whether there’s always a base number; I think these conclusions are very general. I think they simply looked at a sample of first born men and found that X percent were gay. Then they looked at a sample of second born men and found that X percent multiplied by 1.33 were gay. Then they looked at sample of third born men and found that X percent multiplied by 1.33 multiplied by 1.33 were gay, etc.

If you are skeptical of the research and interested in the topic, you cold always collect your own data (maybe for a biology project for university). One simple study would be to spend the night at a gay bar and ask a random sample of guys how many older brothers they have and go home and calculate the average number. Then spend the next night at a “straight bar” and ask a random sample of guys how many older brothers they have and calculate the average number. Then do a one tailed t test to confirm whether there’s a statistically significant difference in fraternal birth order favoring gay men. This would not confirm the 33% rule, but it would either confirm or contradict the general notion of fraternal birth order being linked to male gayness.

I do think there’s a lot of politically motivated research so you’re right to be skeptical up to a point. There also might be the so-called file drawer effect, where people might have done studies that failed to confirm the fraternal birth order effect, but didn’t bother publishing either because they were afraid there was something wrong with their study when it contradicted a confirmed hypothesis, or because null findings are boring.

I certainly would not dismiss studies correlating homosexuality with sexual abuse (unless the study was clearly biased or incompetent). Even if you accept the studies showing that genetics and fraternal birth order explain part of human sexuality, the combined predictive value of these variables is far from 100%. Clearly there are other environmental factors that play a role and sexual abuse is a good place to look.

As for bad relations with ones father predicting gayness, that would certainly apply to MJ. I once read a theory that argued that having mother who was more dominant than the father made a boy gay.

opinionation said...

With respect to gay men having greater penis size than straight men, I’ve always been skeptical because the data is probably self-reported and since gay men presumably value penis size more than straight men (since it turns them on), I suspect gay men were more biased in their measurements (perhaps without realizing it).

However if it’s confirmed that gay men really do have greater penis size, it explains how homosexuality could have been preserved by evolution. If genes that make men gay just happened to have been linked to genes for greater penis size, gay men could have compensate for their lack of sex with women by having more reproductive success the few times they did have sex with women (to pretend they are straight) and thus consistently passed on their genes throughout the generations. I heard Karen Faye claimed MJ had a large penis though this may have more to do with his race than his sexuality.

With respect to gays being richer and/or more creative, I would think this would be hard to study since so many gays are in the closet, and the subset that comes out might just represent the elite (since poor gays can’t afford to be stigmatized and stupid gays might be in denial or religious). I do know that a study of sex offenders found that pedophiles had the lowest IQ’s:

http://www.tvo.org/theagenda/resources/pdf/2004-Pedo%20IQ%20memory%20handedness.pdf

Susana said...

Maybe I explained myself wrongly the other day. When I said Michael acted more like an adult when he was dealing with “black media”, I should have said like an artist. He was and not the odd persona he portrayed on TV. The interviews for Jet/Ebony are the best of his career, specially after his fame skyrocketed. He gave good interviews to different magazines (black and white) in the 70s and early 80s, when he acted more like a regular person (by Michael standards). He didn't played the dumb character yet; he was even a little aggressive when defending his arguments and definitely not the sappy, PC, strange, and falsely modest clown he became later. He did talk basically about music and he did it with passion.

Many journalists have pointed it too. When he wanted to talk seriously about his music, he used black media and was more open and “normal” when he was interviewed by them in the press.

MJ was very manipulative. He created this character to mislead people because he was a paedophile and nothing more. I don't think he acted this way specifically for whites LOL. Black fans in forums are praising the same corny things the white fans love on him.
Basically he gave interviews to them on TV when he was a superstar (I include Oprah and E. Bradley). TV reaches a wider, diverse, and less specialized audience than music magazines or general press. Maybe that is why he displayed and built the “innocent” and absurd character on TV, where he was more “visible”. Also they were more interested in his personal life than in his art.
In the 90s and onward, his fan base was attracted to the iconic strange figure more than the real musician. Well, I don't take him as a serious musician after the 80s, lol.

I've seen in forums some people make us whites responsible for his changes, oddness and decline. What he did to himself is his entire responsibility. His changes are the inflection point where his decline begun. He became a superstar and had the best selling album when he was still looking black. People of all races fell in love with him because of his talent and also bc he was a very good looking man... specially in the 70s. In the way from Thriller to Bad he lost millions upon millions of fans because we couldn't understand what the hell he was doing.

We shouldn't draw the line between white and black people, but between blacks and whites with common sense and good taste, and black and white moronic fans who buy all the lies Whacky Jackie told them. They aren't even interested in music. That explains why he mimed all his concerts after the Bad Tour LOL.

Susana said...

Désirée,

I'm amazed how fans disregard all the objective proofs you show here. Keep up the good work!

A little OT but... do you remember what Adrian McManus and Blanca Francia told about MJ's “toilet habits”? The first time I've read it, given that I try to be objective, I thought the scatology part was intended to ridicule him and make him look more pathetic, reinforcing the idea that he was a paedophile because people will easily correlate criminal behaviour with disgusting habits.
Well, after reading this little snippet, I have no doubt they were telling the truth one more time.

This is an excerpt from Janet J's book:
***
I was still a pre teen when Mike introduces us to vegetarianism. I believe that came out of his love for animals, a love that I share deeply. It seemed to make sense, and the majority of the family went along with the program.

Mother agreed and felt it was not only important to exclude animal flesh from our diet but to employ colonic treatments on a weekly basis. The idea was that the bacteria and toxins that accumulate in the colon have to be flushed out.

Later I would learn that many doctors disagree with this method, feeling that the body's digestive system naturally eliminates those toxins. There is a school of thought, however, that maintaining a healthy colon requires extraordinary measures. For many years, our family adopted those measures. And as an obedient child, I didn't argue or challenge the plan. As a young girl, that wasn't my nature.
****

Jessica said...

Susana,

I wasn't trying to make a racial swipe at white people LOL. It was more of an observation. But I will say that Mike's transformation is partly based on internal racial self-hatred, because he was American. I think you said you were European, so maybe you don't understand what it is like to be black in America, especially since we were slaves and only almost 60 years ago we had a huge civil rights movement that finally gave us rights as 1st class citizens (we still struggle with racism despite being the only country outside the African continent with a black president). Mike was old enough to understand the discrimination against black people and have it mess up his head.

In America, whites like "safe", "non-threatening" images of black people, so it is entirely possible that Mike changed his voice to placate the humble white masses. I'm not saying that was the was the only reason, since I suspect that he did it to sound like a child for sexual reasons, but it definitely makes sense that race could have played into it. Also, in America being lighter skin, especially being closer to white, is valued, particularly amongst older black people (who should know better). Remember Bob Jones said that Katherine didn't like that Rebbie married a dark black man? Katherine herself liked that Joe was light skinned with green eyes. Mike probably got it from his family not to like being dark. And the American masses prefer lighter blacks to darker ones. Mike was raised in a family of self hatred and then went out in a world that was racist, so he could have internalized it and therefore wanted to change his skin and nose to match what he was taught to believe was the most beautiful. The most beautiful being white. I mean, look at the way they always mention having "Indian" in their blood, it's as if being "just black" isn't good enough.

Mike most definitely chose to fuck his face up LOL, but I think there is a racial component in there that partly to blame. I personally loathe Mike because of his self-hatred. I hate that he didn't like to be black, calling black people "splaboos", thinking they are ugly, liking white people more, etc. I can't even listen to his music because that aspect really pisses me off. And from my experience, there are A LOT of white fans that have no problem with his bleached transformation, some of them even preferring it to his real black self (just look at some of their avatars, most of them are from Bad to the present, not from Thriller to the Jackson 5). I know Mike loved white people, Europeans especially, so in my mind it is not hard to believe that his transformation is rooted in his desire to be like white people.

But all of this was most definitely his own choice, and no white people told him to become like them. In fact, it seems that American white people are the most disgusted with his transformation and can't understand it. Maybe they don't like the thought of a black man successfully becoming them? I don't know, but non-fans who are white don't like what he did.

But idiotic fans of all races put up with his BS because they are brain washed. Pure and simple. I think that the black ones especially need to get it together, but that is my own opinion. But I will say that many of the white fans, from all countries, forget that he was black a little too much for my liking.

Good sleuthing about the enema stuff! I always believed that he was using enemas, the charge was just too strange to be a lie. Now the real question is whether Mike really used them for sexual pleasure as Orietta Murdoch is alleged to have said. I know Blanca said he told her he and Janet used them to stay thin. Makes me think that all the other things that the witnesses said are most likely true as well. The witnesses are always dismissed but I believe them.

Jessica said...

Susana, you are so right about Jacko's Wackos not being interested in his music. Absolutely. All they care about is if he really loved/hated LMP and all the "women" he's been with. LOL...NONE!!! But they refuse to notice all the boys. Why is it that we can name all his special little boyfriends but we can only remember the names of his sham wives as "real" relationships? Says a lot.

And to be honest, his personal missteps are a little more fascinating than the dance steps he made on stage.

Jessica said...

Lady C,

I think when Mike said he would never have his own children naturally, that was a huge hint that he was gay. I think that quote was from the early 1980s (when he was uber gay LOL). I think the fact that he said that he wouldn't naturally conceive was a smokescreen. The public/media would see that he wasn't married or had a girlfriend, but they would remember how he said that he wouldn't procreate, so maybe Mike hoped that they wouldn't pressure him about his lack of women. It's a convenient way to explain away a lack of dating, relationships, being physical with women etc. It's like gays being priests in the 1960s; the fact that they as priests had to be celibate would take away the strange looks a man could get if he was still single at an old age (but clearly, some of these men turned into situation child molesters because they were denying their sexuality. I believe many of those priests are not actually pedophiles, since that is rare, but actually liked men/women but offended against kids because they were available).

I think was doing the same thing by saying he wouldn't procreate naturally and have his own kids. Now he had an excuse to be single for so long! Look, he married LMP when he was 35, and ONLY because of the allegations of child molestation. I don't think he would have done it if he wasn't "snitched" on by a special friend. He would have kept on having special friends until he died had no one blew his cover.

may said...

Desiree, I find some of your ideas a biased. for example you write that:

"I should note that I am fairly liberal in terms of this and generally see no harm in non-coercive, non-dominative sexual contact between early pubescents (at the earliest) and adults and would advocate US consent laws being at 13"

Then you should find nothing wrong with what MJ was accused of since both boys were 13. You don't though and have written in other posts how different and less serious the accusations were against Roman Polanski. Of course the only real difference is that Polanski's crimes were heterosexual in nature while Jackson's were homosexual. In fact what Polanski did to that 13 yo girl is much more severe in that he knocked her out with hard drugs, raped and sodomized her. Allegations against MJ never included these kinds of acts. to be clear I am not trying to minimize the accusations against MJ, but point out the hypocrisy of people acting like his are worse because they concerned boys.

In regards to homosexuality being innate, I recently watched a program on transgendered people which shows that the brains of people born as men who change to female actually had been born with brains that were like that of natural born females, so this is another possibility to consider.

Jessica said...

May,

Gays are not the same as transexuals. They don't want to be women. So the comparison is moot; they are just attracted to their same sex. 50% of a person's brain isn't even wired until after birth, so it is probably socialization (nurture, environment) that made these transexuals think they are in the wrong body, possibly experiencing some childhood traumatic event. They may have been subconsciously taught to identify with the mismatched gender. At any rate, transexuals are pretty screwed up to think that they were "made wrong".

Desiree said...

may:

I find it interesting in that my writings are fairly clear in both my posts and the comments and, yet, you still managed to take something out of context.

That quote, first of all, is pretty self-explanatory.

It's taboo but I honestly have little issue with Jacko's boy-loving; when the boys hit 13, calling what Jacko did--and this may be different for other cases--'abuse' is an exercise in false outrage. What Polanski did to Samantha Geimer was date rape, a crime; I do not, however, see him as a pedophile or anything else of that nature for having dated teenage girls or being attracted to them.

Men are wired to be attracted to 'blossoming' females; the term 'jailbait' accurately demonstrates society being in contradiction to biology. The alternate explanation, of course, could be that Western society (including Japan) is obsessed with youth to the point it's sexual...

I am just putting Jacko's boy-loving out in the open. I'll be nihilistic in this instance. I am not the moral police; the boys did not seem to be harmed by it, except Jason Francia, who was more tricked and groped than the other boys and was never a 'special friend', stressing friend.

I never said on this blog--and since you act as if you've read other posts and/or comment threads, you should know this--that Michael Jackson should be condemned or killed for his boy-loving. Honestly, highlighting his boy-loving, when he claimed that he was this asexual man-child, is an absolute delight, and it's funny in a shocking way, that this megastar had a deep, dark, and secretive predilection. I am merely the messenger of this information.

I think, not surprisingly, you have misjudged my intentions and misread my statements. Michael Jackson offending against 6 to 11-year-olds was wrong: having a 7-year old Wade Robson sleeping in the bed with him, or luring 5-year-old Alex Manchester, Jr. off to his bedroom, or having phone sex with 12-year-old Terry George is odd. Nothing I would condone!

My biggest problem with Jacko is that he ruined reputations and lives hiding his interest in and sexual relations with boys. Sure, he would never have been able to 'voice it' but he didn't have to be so destructive to other people. Imagine his family and friends and employees having to see him with these boys and caring about him, worrying that he'd be arrested and jailed.

That's what I hate. If he could have been a very open gay man, I think his life would not have been so hard.

And this is why it's good to highlight his pedophilia and homosexuality. The fans hate it, but so be it.

Desiree said...

As for transsexuals, as Jessica stated, they are a whole different animal than gays and, thus, are a poor comparison. I won't mince words here nor will I be politically correct: transgendered individuals are mentally ill, I'd say functionally psychotic. I watched an interview with Chaz Bono--Cher's transgendered daughter--and she was so confused about her sexuality I had to shake my head. She says she had been attracted to men before but she says (as, usual, in hindsight) they were 'bromances', in that it was a guy having a guy crush.

No, she is just a gender-confused lesbian.

There is nothing biological about something like transsexuality. That is all socialization, learned behavior. As Jessica mentioned, only the reptilian brain is intact ('wired') in a healthy infant from its birth--the parts of brain that control the most essential of functions; other parts of the brain that make us human are wired according to experience. This is why you can have children living amongst dogs who think like dogs. That transgendered males' brains 'glow' like females' do on a pop science TV show is no indication that that is inborn. That one has always 'felt a certain way' should not be a free pass to engage in (pseudo)scientific trickery.

Unless, of course, one acknowledges it's a biological mistake; it could at least explain why these types of people are such a tiny part of the global population.

However, I don't buy that. I just think they are the product of a sort of diabolical socialization, so deeply confused about their identities that they feel it was innate. And it's sad. The current 'Oh, just get a sex change' treatment given to these individuals is not addressing the problem; it's putting a Band-Aid on a gushing wound.

Gays are not like transgendered people, it's completely different. Gays aren't mentally ill, neither are pedophiles who are interested in pubescent youths (the ones interested in little kids are mentally ill).

You know, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against but I will not 'lie' when asked for my thoughts on the subject of so-called sexual minorities. If it's politically incorrect or offensive to say gays aren't 'born that way' or transgendered people are psychologically 'off', so be it.

Desiree said...

Susana:

I don't know why these fans still decide to deny the evidence I present. Honestly, I really cannot explain it. I guess you can say it is similar to religious people. Some Christians don't believe in evolution and, regardless if you show them evidence that DNA and RNA sequencing has demonstrated a LUCA* exists, they will still doubt it's merits.

I guess we can sit here wondering why they still disbelieve but it's probably rather fruitless. I don't debate them on their 'turfs' because they don't really want to debate. They simply say everything that is negative or less than positive, even if just by a hair, for Michael is a 'lie' or is something that needs to be contextualized to death or rationalized away.

I'd be willing to give them credit for their (dubious) conclusions in defense of Michael if they could at least try to be clever. Simply saying everything was (a) a lie by greedy grifters or (b) a set up will just not do it for me.

One thing I still do not quite understand is the stubbornness with regard to the semen stains. Most of the fans at least acknowledge that it was there and was semen, although some geriatric nut over at one those vindication sites called the stains saliva and that it was proof Jacko was the father of the children.

I don't go onto any of these sites because, frankly, I get dizzy watching people spin. I should note that the aforementioned geriatric nut comes on to my blog almost everyday, probably stealing links or spying.

I guess all of the denials to these proofs sort of angers me as a rational person. I am not saying that I am the smartest person in the word but I do think if A equals B and B equals C then A must equal C: I mean, if I don't know how many other proofs you can show to these fans that a man who sleeps in bed with 'special friends' and is accused of molesting one of them, it is probably true.

I mean, what more can one say? So, I don't even bother. When I was researching into Michael's life after his death, the ONLY stuff out there about him that was in depth was posts on fan sites and 'vindication' blogs. So, if you did not know anything about Jacko, you'd be convinced everything he said was true and all of his detractors were liars and out for money. You'd have to give the guy credit: he was a master manipulator, and immediately donned the innocent Peter Pan thing when his boy-related actions started to look suspicious.

All of this is persona so deeply embedded in the Michael Jackson fan collective consciousness. They are too brainwashed or whatever you call it to really see past the bullshit. They defend him like good fans (read: cult members) should; I thin they are incapable of objectivity.

Some of them can break away from it. I get emails from people who tell me they enjoy this blog because they are starting to see it. That's why it is important, I think to have this site out there so when people research Jacko they won't be stuck with all of the 'Rah rah He's totally innocent' crap.

Desiree said...

Anyone can read through my site and see that I evolved in my own thinking; when I stumbled upon the article where it said Jacko paid off a family for $300,000 and this transaction was verified by several credible members of his staff, I thought, Well, maybe something is going on here.

I think it can happen that they realize that everything they believe in is a lie. We'll see that when the trial happens; they will be tested. All I am saying is that they are just content in denial. I could continue on and they still CHOOSE to disbelieve it.

My thing is that don't say 'we we'll agree to disagree' or anything like that. It is not that simple'. Say "Desiree you've got this wrong, it'a really this" etc and then challenge my posts.

Something they should understand: just because they CHOOSE to disbelieve in it does not mean it's untrue. The semen was semen regardless if they want to believe it came from Michael's bedroom being a veritable Motel 6 or that it was saliva (whatever); facts don't change.

What they don't get is that I am not the opposite of them. I can be objective and am objective about Jacko. it just so happens that a lot of the stuff saying that he was a gay pedophile and not the father of his kids passes the smell test.

And, Susana, of course the enema stuff was true. I thought it had to be since it was so strange, so out-of-left field to say. That quote you showed goes a long way to just proving our suspicions. I think Victor Gutierrez has a definitely ick factor given the stance he'd taken in his book but I think he worked hard on the info in his book; I believe his findings.

So sad; there is so much out there and they see not a thing...


* Last universal common ancestor

Suzy said...

It´s true, transsexualism has nothing to do with being gay or not. I knew that just some time ago but when someone makes a sex change, it can has to do with someone being gay or not. I admit that first I thought if a man made a sex change that´s because he loved other men, because of course, as a woman he could have sex with them.

May said...

Interesting Desiree. I think I understand better your thinking on MJ. I tend to be somewhere in the middle on a lot of things. I do agree it is extremely unlikely MJ was hetero and have no idea why fans care one way or another about this. I find it frustrating that people seem to paint MJ as being completely good or completely bad. I think we have to be just as careful of vilification as deification and keep an open and discrimination mind. Not all "evidence" is equally compelling, especially since people lie, not just MJ.

Desiree said...

May:

I don't deify or vilify Jacko. I simply report the facts. This site is not a sort of back-and-forth between myself and his legions of drones. Yes, I find them irritating in their resistance to evidence that shows him as something different than the mythos. However, my main goal is in bringing this evidence out of the closet--so to speak--and allowing people to be able to see things as they are, sans the whitewash and the blind faith.

May, fans care about whether or not he was gay because they are attracted to him, women to a male 'sex symbol' (??). If he was gay--and that is at about 100 percent certainty now--it would destroy their fantasies. When they say, "I would have no problem if MJ was gay," and then follow that up with, "but I don't think he was," they are lying to you.

They do care; they absolutely care.

Jason Pfeiffer is an incredible player in this grand story and is absolutely believable. From speaking with him, I have no doubt that he and Michael were actually in that 2 month affair. Anyone who disbelieves Jason Pfeiffer is off-base; again, I am not the most incredibly intelligent person in the world but I am definitely perceptive. He is just very honest.

And since he is telling the truth, here you have the only adult who has come out and said, "Yes, I was with Michael Jackson intimately."

Jacko's preoccupation with boys, his being accused of molesting them, his lack of women, his test tube children, and now Jason Pfeiffer... it is all more than enough evidence to say, "Yes, Jacko was gay."

His fans are homophobic; perhaps they think gay is something fine on someone else but never, ever on their Michael! I think they should get over it.

As for lying, it is only speculation that individuals going against Jacko have lied. That is not bias speaking; it is fact. In reality, the only people saying these detractors lied are Jacko. Michael Jackson's lies are well-documented; so, when you have a well-documented liar going against people who hare speaking against him, it would be silly to believe the liar over the people, unless they, too, have equally well-documented histories of lying.

That we don't know. In the face of all the other evidence, the simplest explanation would be that they are telling the truth, or at least their version of events should be held in higher regard.

What evidence do you find less than compelling? The only person I don't trust is Adrian McManus and maybe the Arvizos, although I have a gut feeling he did molest Gavin; everyone else, though, I find them to be pretty believable.

may said...

I find the reports from staff who "saw something" less than compelling because they didn't report it at the time and because the boys in question denied it. I find it hard to believe they'd all be covering for him. I thought the Arvizo's were totally ridiculous with their kidnap plots.

may said...

I think Jordan's story was the most believable but I'd have to hear him speak out as an adult to be fully convinced given that his father could have pushed him into it.

In regards to adult relationships, I wonder if there isn't a longer term male relationship that we haven't heard about yet. I really hope there was someone that MJ found happiness with.

Lady C said...

May:

I think MJ's fans have it etched in their minds that MJ was hetero because like Desiree said, they're were attracted to him and fantasized about him. For MJ to be gay, pokes holes in their fantasy, and I think that Jason coming out with their affair, "deflates" it even more. IMO, I think it even brings about some feelings of jealousy and resentment towards Jason or better yet, "all the men" in MJ's life. Let's face it, any die-hard female fan of MJ most likely has fantasized that 'they' were his love interest, and having proof of his involvement with a female makes the fantasy more 'real' and something within grasp. Star fantasies are nothing uncommon...It's like the female fans who have a crush/drool over their favorite celebrity like, Jason Beiber, for example, and dream of them becoming his love interest or "The Mrs. Jason Beiber". Since he likes females in return, it bolsters their fantasy gives them a self feeling of "I've got a chance at him" mentality so to speak.

However; on the other hand with MJ it's different...MJ being involved with a man, makes the fantasy seem very distant and out of reach; leaving his fans with a feeling of "something denied" to them...And for a lot of his fans, female in particular, this is something very hard to swallow...Then denial sets in and along with the desperation of wanting him to have been intimately involved with a female; any female to help 'rule out' homosexual probability because 'that can't be an option'.

As far a Jordan Chandler goes, EVEN IF his father did put him up to lying, it still does not change the fact that MJ molested him. The fact that Jordan is now an adult, does not change that; it was Michael's choice of action that implicated him. IF extortion was a factor, which Desiree proves most likely it was not, MJ still did what he did; a gun was not put to his head, and for that he should've been prosecuted,IMO.

A question for you...What difference would the story of an adult Jordan Chandler make given the fact that he was actually molested by MJ, outside the fact that some people think he was coerced by his father? Remember Jordan was 13 yrs. old at the time, and was very well capable of giving a very detailed description of MJ's genitals; of which for the most part was correct. The question that should be asked is, what was Michael doing to Jason, for Jason to be able to give an exact description of Michael's genitalia, regardless of who put who up to what?

Frenchie said...

I am glad I found this blog. I admit I bought into the media's canonization of Michael Jackson after his death. Recently, I started researching him. Almost everything I found was penned by fangirls who had no interest in Michael until he died. Many of their comments troubled me. They were actually hoping for the violent deaths of Michael's accusers. I became so put off by their hatred that I started seeking out opposing views, and in doing so I realized that perhaps Michael was not the seraphic man I believed him to be. After reading Jordan's session with Dr. Richard Garner, my belief had finally been cemented that Michael was truly a hebephile. I have no doubt that Jordan was sexually molested, and every psychiatrist and psychologist who examined him concluded the same.

I have such compassion for Jordan. The molestation itself was just a drop in the bucket to what he's gone through in the last 18 years. As a boy, he received death threats, was hounded by tabloids, was verbally and physically harassed by fans, has had complete strangers make up lies about him, (falsely claiming to be "insiders" or "friends" of his). Here, he did the right thing by coming forward, and his life has been ruined because of it. While he might have money, he does not have the simple luxury of feeling safe. He is isolated with few people he can trust. For goodness sakes, he can't venture out on a ski trip with his family and (now) ex-girlfriend, without paparazzi chasing him down, the photos ending up all over the internet, and more lies being spread about him.

For the record, I wouldn't mind the ridiculous Michael Jackson worshiping so much if there wasn't such hate directed at people that don't deserve it, and are already in an emotionally fragile place.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

Welcome. I hope you enjoy the entries, and the future ones to come. How did you get to this blog, by the way?

The Gardener interview with Jordie Chandler is definitely a flaw in the game plan for Jacko fans; the only thing they say about it is that Jordie sounded coached, which I disagree with, all things considered. There are areas that seem coached but not in the way one expects; Jordie was insistent that he saw no problem with what he and Michael were doing. It is in the areas where he says the opposite that seem coached to me, as if he had to be told it was wrong.

We should remember that Evan Chandler stated that he had to be convinced that what Michael and his son were doing was bad. According to the maid who lived with the Chandlers, she said Evan and Natalie should have been thrown in jail for allowing it all to happen.

Michael Jackson absolutely was a gay pedophile (or hebephile, I suppose). If Richard Gardner believed Jordie Chandler, than Jordie Chandler was telling the truth.

Gardner was an incredibly intelligent man and took no BS. I know that the fans had tried to discredit him, as well, which I find to be insane. If they read Gardner's book--such as "Sex Abuse Hysteria"--they would understand how absolutely wrong they are about Gardner and that interview. Understanding Gardner is ancillary but it definitely makes you view that interview from a completely different perspective.

Everyone, except Jacko, is given the third degree. I think this is the colossal Achilles' heel for the fans; it is when Jacko is scrutinized that the truth comes out. People should understand reality and the court of law are different; in reality, the defendant is never presumed innocent; he must prove he is not guilty. Unfortunately for the accused, they usually are guilty, as Michael Jackson was.

I should note that Jacko's fans, NAMBLA, and pedophiles, in general, see no harm in sleeping in the bed with other people's young sons. Don't they realize they are parroting the pedophile nonsense, and that when talking about false sexual abuse, pedophiles and child molesters also talk about this constantly?

It should be no real surprise, though: they are defending the world's most famous pedophile. About 95-98% of sex abuse cases are true. Couple with this statistic, that Michael Jackson pushed $25M in hush money to the Chandlers and their attorneys is strong circumstantial evidence that he absolutely was guilty of molestation.

Frenchie, if you can get yourself a copy of "Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons" by Carl Toms, that book is a goldmine of great analysis of Michael Jackson's predilection for boys, not to mention it has tons of info I have never heard about.

Desiree said...

Funny comments about my impending entries. All from the site Vindicate MJ (no link needed; I am saving you time):

lcpledwards PERMALINK
May 16, 2011 12:22 am:

"Hey, guess what? Desiree is planning on doing a 2 part series on MJ’s settlements to use them as signs of his guilt! I can’t WAIT to see what she has to say, so I can utterly annihilate her! Here’s what she said on her blog:

http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/05/note-on-comments-and-future-of-desiree.html

I will, however, make the effort to finish what I have left, as long as interest remains. And it is as follows:
An entry on Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes’ relationship, with document links and other analyses;
An entry on Michael Jackson’s books, including a pictorial of The Boy: a photographic essay;
A two-part entry discussing the meaning of Michael Jackson’s 1994 settlement;
An entry on Jason Pfeiffer (although Jason now has his own site and perhaps would be better at discussing his point-of-view than I would);
An entry discussing Joy Robson’s 2005 testimony, which seemed to lend more than enough reasonable suspicion that Wade Robson was a intimate ‘special friend’


I may have to write a rebuttal to Desiree’s posts, but I’m sure that this series will already rebut her trash, but I’ll be ready to write another post on this, just in case!"


lynande51 PERMALINK
May 16, 2011 5:07 pm:

"I wonder how she is going to do a complete analysis of the Settlement without the paragraph three that has been edited out by Diane Dimond for ease of our little minds reading ability? When she does an analysis of the book The Boy: A Photographic Essay, is she going to use the very same book with the inscription on it that says ” to Michael from your fan Rhonda XXXOOOXXX”, which indicates to me and the rest of the world that Michael Jackson didn’t purchase the book but that it was a gift from a fan in 1978. If she needs a photo of it she can get one from Aphrodite Jones’ book. Also when she analizes the testimony and documents about Wade Robson , Joy Robson, and Brett Barnes she does realize that they are still alive and very much able to sue for slander and the burden of proof is on her. If they sued her for potential loss of earnings due to her slanderous blog I think she might be in trouble because they have a much larger earning potential than she obviously knows. Then of course there is the potential of someone seeing the photos that she intends to display and thinking the same thing about her that the prosecution tried to pull off with Michael in 2005. If Tom Sneddon couldn’t do it in 2005 what makes this silly child think she can?She uses her favorite tabloid writers and mixes them together with a snippet of a document here and a snippet of a document there when she knows her readers are all to lazy to actually read it so of course they agree with her, they don’t know anybetter."

Of course, a total mischaracterization... Do I sense fear?

Jessica said...

I agree that the Richard Gardner interview with Jordie was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence against Mike, and Jordie sounds very believable. I personally found the conversations between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler also very compelling, and they showed me that Evan wasn't the monster that the fans make him out to be. I know Susana disagrees about the phone convos ;-). I think the fans just don't have their eyes open and are just so blinded by adoration and idol worship that the refuse to see the writing on the wall. Mike was a pedophile. Plain and simple. They act as if there is no evidence against Mike, but there is...THEY just refuse to see it.

Desiree,

Wow, how ridiculous are the losers at VMJ? I sense fear as well. David's settlement pieces are a joke and don't answer the central question of why would an innocent man pay $20 mil to lying extortionist. There is no proof that he was overruled by his insurance company and that fact is attested to by Mike himself! He said it was a decision reached by he and his lawyers to prevent it from dragging fro 7 years and it being like the OJ Simpson case. They believe Mike when he says he was "innocent" but not when plainly says he wasn't forced to settle.

And clearly Lynette doesn't know a thing about American libel laws. The person suing for slander/libel has to not only prove that the "slander" is untrue, but the biggest thing is that they would have to prove that the "slanderer" knew what they were saying was untrue and they spoke/wrote with malicious intent. The burden of proof is NOT on the defendent. That is why slander suits are rarely successful in America. This isn't Britain.

Curious though, Michael Jackson never sued any of those British tabloids over the stories about his child molestation, when it's so much easier to win for celebrities. He didn't sue Maureen Orth for her reportage as well. Says a lot.

Sarah said...

Ladies

I have a downloaded documentary by the famous Martin Bashir that came out before MJ's trial in 2005. It is called the Michael Jackson's Secret World, and contains interviews by some people that have previously not given interviews to Bashir including Corey Feldman and Sandra Sutherland who was a PI employed bu the Chandlers in 1993. But most telling of all is Raymond Chandler's discussion withh Martin Bashir, where he plays excerpts of Jordan's discussion with Dr Gardner. Let me just say that once you have heard it, there can be no doubt that Jordan was not lying. When I heard it I felt sick to my stomach. For years I was an MJ fan, saw him in concert a handful of times, even met him in Australia on his last tour,was sad when he died. I never wanted to believe it was true, however, 2 fundamental disoveries convinced me of my fears:
1 Jordan's interview with Dr Richard Gardner particulary the audio version.
2 The polaroid photo found in MJ's room in 1993 of a young boy beieved to be Jonathan Spence naked in bed with a sheet draped across his private parts.
I wanted to believe all the hype about lost childhood and boys just being boys even at 30 to 40 years of age. But I think one has to come to the realisation that most friends don't sleep in the same bed, let alone take pictures of each other naked! MJ was certainly a confused mixed up person, the shame of it is I don't think he thought there was anything wrong with "loving" young boys. It seems he thought he was having a relationship with them as a man would have with a woman that he loved.
I will see if I can find the link to the documentary I mentioned, it's chilling stuff.

Desiree said...

Sarah:

Yes, please find that documentary link! It sounds fantastic!

Jessica said...

Sarah,

That doc sounds so interesting! Please find the link if you can. I heard about the polaroid picture they found in 1993. The fans act like the cops found absolutely nothing against Mike in 1993 but really that isn't true. He paid $20 mil to the chandlers for a reason.

I'm really curious about hearing the words come out of Jordie's own mouth. I always thought he was telling the truth but it's just good to put a voice to those words. Dr. Gardner was a brilliant man that did not tolerate false child abuse allegations, so if he believed Jordie, and he did believe him, then that was very good for their case.

Sarah, the fans, even if they hear Jordie's own words, will never believe him. Mike will always be a saint and always an "innocent man child" that would never hurt a child. But the reality is is that he was a pedophile. You are so right, friends don't sleep together...nor do they perform sex acts on each other. Mike was lucky that the jury in 2005 would not consider all the 1108 evidence when they were reaching the verdict. They just looked at the Arvizos, even though many of them thought he was a child molester.

IHateStupidPeople said...

People on Jason´s blog are most and most stupid and trying to pretend to be insiders. That people is just naive.

Jessica said...

IHateStupidPeople,

They are just mad that Mike was gay. Period. They have literally went over the deep end mentally. But we shouldn't be surprised, the fans made up "women" that Mike was "with" in forums all over the Internet. I think they can't tolerate that Jason is nice and believable. They will just have to accept that he and Mike had a gay fling in 2009. MIKE WAS GAY! LOL their hysteria and rationalization is amusing.

Lady C said...

Sarah:

Can't wait to see that documentary! The fans over at VMJ will pitch a bitch.lol After reading all that I have on MJ and seeing all the proof that Desiree has provided us all with, it's crystal clear that MJ definitely had something to hide regarding Jordan Chandler. There's just too much proof and factual evidence against MJ to deny it...The Chandler's had Michael backed up against the wall, and MJ felt the pressure to 'pay off' to make it go away BECAUSE he knew they had 'dirt' on him to put him away...MJ knew that if they went to court, he didn't have a leg to stand on, and his lawyers knew that as well. I can't wait for Desiree's part two of the Chandler allegation settlement...the truth will reveal!lol

You had a good point, that friends don't sleep together. What I also find interesting is the obvious fact that MJ kept a Polaroid camera in his possession; to take inappropriate photos of his 'friends' without having to bother to have them developed through other means...how convenient for him. I'm sure MJ thought he was being slick.lol

Desiree said...

Lady C:

That is a good point about the Polaroid camera; I never thought of that. When you think about it, any TV show or movie were a pedophile is featured has a 'collection' of Polaroids. Perhaps that is a legitimate marker of the criminal pedophile.

According to Ken Lanning, all of that so-called heterosexual porn Jacko had is typical of pedophiles (or, 'preferential child molesters'). he noted that it is a large collection, exactly what Michael Jackson had. As it stands, while I can see how it would be reasonable to assume that a porn collection can 'grow' in proportion to the owner's wealth, there was no way Jacko used all of that porn himself.

He had to have it for some other reason, assuming he used some of it for himself.

Again, we do have testimony that he showed his pornography/sexually explicit images to boys: the Lemarques, Corey Feldman, and the Arvizo boys.

God, one can only imagine what Jacko was up to with his personal equipment!

Lady C said...

Desiree:

A question for you: Do you know if the story that came out about Jordan Chandler's lie confession is true at all, or is it lie fabrication? I don't see how it could be true...Why would Jordan come out after all these years and flat out confess that his father put him up to lying about MJ, knowing that his life would be in more danger than before with all the threats and harassment of MJ's fans?

I just purchased the book, All That Glitters, from Amazon a week ago; still awaiting it's arrival. I know that you said it is a good book, so hopefully I will get a better understanding more of the Jordan Chandler case. I'm still debating on whether or not I want to purchase, Dangerous Liaisons...I know you said that one was a good read as well.

I was surfing around on the internet, and it still amazes me how the MJ fans hold Martin Bashir responsible for MJ's demise. They truly believe it in their hearts that he drove Michael to his death....Well the last time I checked, I thought it was Conrad Murray who did the deed. lol It's so ridiculous as to what they choose to see and believe versus what actually is.

I was listening to an interview by a British Journalist, Charles Thomson, on YT(he has a blog BTW) and his talk about how the media's opinion about MJ was biased and how Martin Bashir's documentary wasn't fair towards MJ.

Some things that he talked about was that there was another journalist, Louis Thoroux, I believe who first wanted to do MJ's documentary; had very high marks as a journalist, good reputation with no prior 'complaints' unlike Bashir, who did have one complaint against him when he did the doc. However, Jacko's inside people who vetted all outsiders who come in contact with him, went with Bashir at Uri Gellar's recommendation not to mention that Bashir supposedly "lured" MJ into doing the interview based on his past success with Princess Diana...As a result, Jacko's camp determined that choosing Bashir was suicide for MJ. He also pointed out that at the 2005 trial, Mesereau had to 'tell the story' to the jury through questioning, but had difficulty doing so because Bashir was refusing to answer a lot of questions through protection of the California Shield Law. Thomson goes on to say that according to Dieter Weisner, while in Berlin in 2002, he actually saw Bashir go into MJ's hotel suite and rummage through his luggage, and while MJ was not around, he took a camera and played as if he was taking pictures of MJ's children when he wasn't suppose to, etc., things of that nature. He also mentions how the media was 'hungry' for a guilty verdict and banked on it, only to find themselves with egg on their face when the not guilty verdict came in.

What I find kind of interesting is, Thomson points out that while Bashir was busy on the stand "shielding" himself from Mesereau's questions, MJ did the very same thing in the 1993 Chandler allegations...MJ refused to answer MANY questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. It's like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say!? lol Maybe Bashir was some what unfair to the documentary, but I believe he was just being honest in stating what he saw and felt at the time based on what MJ was telling him. But his asking MJ questions about certain things, putting him on the spot, and pointing out his lies and what not was fair game. There were no holds barred and nothing was off limits in that interview...With that MJ knew what pickle he was possibly getting himself into.

I think that the biggest thing that frustrates me out of all of this now that MJ's gone, that there's someone or some people out there who know the real truth about MJ, and for some 'mysterious' reason they refuse to fess up...It always starts out that they claim they know something, say it, only to go back and recant what they said earlier.

Lady C said...

Desiree (cont.)

I have to give it to Jacko...it must be really something to have that kind of 'hold' on people
who will protect you to the death after you're long gone from this world. lol

Sarah said...

Ladies

I have found the link to the documentary I mentioned I will post it here. Funnily enough it is on an MJ fan site Vindicate MJ or something like that. Some sad person has spent hours writing a long blurb on the show and how unfair it is! But they have very kindly liked a lot of docs and useful web pages.
With regard to All the Glitters I can confirm it is a very good book, it gets a bit hard to follow in places but is well worth it.
With regard to Jordan Chandler confession, this is pure fantasy on behalf of MJ's fans. I have read notes from Diane Dimond on her site which says that she traced the ISP address from some of these fansites to the same people that posted that Jordan had recanted, infact they also state that Gavin did also. Which is also crap, I have seen a Twitter comment by Star Arvizo after MJ died still stating that they stick by their story, interesting enough he calls MJ a cocaine addict. Which is something I have heard around the traps before, the cocaine in the jocks makes sense now eh?

Frenchie said...

@Sarah

I'm not surprised that the IPs go back to the same person. There are plenty of MJ fans dedicated to taking down the Chandlers by any means possible. Can you imagine living your life knowing that there are unstable people from all over the world who obsess over ways to destroy you? Jordan has had to deal with that for more than half of his life.

Lady C said...

Sarah:

Thank you for finding the link for us; looking forward to seeing it! lol I'm sure the MJ fans will continue to paint Bashir in the worst light ever as they've always have (see my comment above to Desiree).

Still waiting for my All That Glitters book to arrive, maybe it will get here today...I hope so!

Jessica said...

Lady C,

I have read "All the Glitters" and it is a good book. It's written in some areas as a narrative, like he has long conversational quotes from Evan or June or the lawyers involved like Larry Feldman and Gloria Allred. I believe those quotes were probably reconstructed from memory for the ease of the audience. Ray Chandler explains a lot of the goings on around the 1993 case, as he was there before the settlement in 1994. He also explains some of the issues involving the phone conversations between Evan and Dave Schwartz, June's ex. He debunks a lot of misconceptions about Evan. It's a good book.

The fans say that he was just writing this book to make money and get Evan's side of the story out since he was bound by that confidentiality agreement they signed in 1994 to settle the case. I don't think this book is about money, I do think he did want to show the truth to the public because Mike was able to tell the whole world in his Primetime Live interview that the whole case was about extortion and Anothony Pellicano called them extortionists as well. But is it fair to say all of that when the plaintiffs in the case are bound to never speak because of the agreement? Actually Mike violated his end of the deal by calling it all about money. That's why the settlement agreement was released--in redacted form. I think that it was probably important to Ray Chandler that this story was told since Mike had been accused a third time of sexual abuse, this time by Gavin Arvizo. He was essentially doing a public service.

About Bashir, it was Mike's fault that he was viewed like that. He let all the crazy out, not Bashir. Yes, Bashir might have lead him into a false sense of security but at the end of the day, it was Mike's ego that was his downfall. He let Bashir stroke his ego and that made him let all his secret out. No one forced him. I don't blame Bashir. Mike wouldn't be dead if he would've gotten help for his boy and drug addictions. Period.

Sarah,

Of course the fans would write a long post about how the doc was unfair. All they do is deny ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is against their idol. Waht they should be doing is listening and thinking why is there so much evidence that shows that there is, at the very least, a reasonably good suspicion tha the was a pedophile.

Susana said...

Jessica,

I agree with you on the self-hate question, and this is one of the reasons I can't understand what he did. This discrimination should have triggered his pride. As the biggest megastar in the world, he was in an excellent position to give a big fuck you to all those racists.

But there is not an excuse for what he did. Do you imagine another successful black person changing their skin colour? Oprah, Tony Morrison, Bill Cosby? Lol. If what he did is deceiving for me, I can't imagine how his family or his black fans felt.

In the 70s he complained in several interviews because black people have been denied recognition for their contributions to music. He more “militant” back then. I wonder where this attitude went.
But I noticed in the Rabbi's book a couple of things that got me thinking.
When they travelled with Rose Fine she presented herself as their mother. The way he phrased it called my attention. Something like five kids with an afro and a white woman. The impression I had is he gives an extraordinary importance to the fact that a white woman “embraced” them like sons. Maybe this one is just a sweet memory. He was young when they travelled and she represented a mother figure.
Also when he commented how white girls in Europe went nuts for him. He bragged and mentioned that he had exceeded Sammy Davis Junior on that department, lol. It seems that he felt validated when white people showed him love.

I agree with you that many of his fans choose the image of MJ since Bad onwards. His new fans don't know him. Many of them are very young. The first image they have is a ghostly white Michael prancing at Neverland with a basket in his hand, acting like a fool. They don't care about music.
Many of his fans IGNORED MJ was black prior to his dead. Maybe they can't reconcile the new and the old image, as I can't with the image of gorgeous MJ with the afro singing Blame it on the Boogie and the strange creature he became later on. For me, he died just before the Victory Tour.
How many versions of MJ's face are... this is so crazy.
There is a generational component to it too. Old fans fell in love with the music and the image of a handsome black man. People with a brain, regardless of race, doesn't understand and is not pleased with the changes. Not because of racism, but because is the most stupid and crazy thing to do. We loved him because he was the way he was. If white people wanted to have a white idol, there were plenty white singers to choose.

Ah, in my opinion racists will be more pissed if he had still looking black. I don't think they feel Mj's witheness was a “menace”. Simply they use that to discredit him.

Susana said...

Sarah,
very interesting information.
Lady C,
good observation regarding the polaroids!

"Polaroid moments":
-on the trial, they questioned the mothers or the special friends (I don't remember) about a polaroid picture with an unidentified kid and MJ behind him, both in their underwear.
-the polaroid of a naked boy destroyed by a bodyguard at Hayvenhurst because MJ told him to do and where to find the picture.
-The polaroids Blanca Francia and others saw: with Jonathan Spence half naked, Mac Culkin lips...

So the picture Sarah is referring to, is mentioned in the C. Andersen book.

One more time, the employees told the truth.

Lady C said...

Jessica:

I need to correct myself...After reading the stuff I said about Bashir, I made the mistake of saying that what was asked in the documentary with MJ was not fair game...I meant to say that it WAS fair game!lol Sometimes I type so fast that I can't keep what with what I'm saying. I only discovered it after what you said in your comment, and I thought...hmmm maybe I didn't make my self clear; now I see why. lol YES, MJ was a dumb ass who definitely knew what he was getting himself into when he agree to to the documentary with Bashir. As a matter of fact, Rabbi Schumley, who I don't have any respect for, even told MJ not to do the documentary although it was recommended by Schumley's friend, Uri Gellar... He specifically told Michael that he wasn't ready to expose himself intimately to the world and that kind of scrutiny. As I said before, there were no holds barred and nothing was off limits in that interview; all was fair game. It's still amazing how the MJ fans are labeling Bashir as a murderer for Jacko...First it was Bashir and now it's Conrad Murray...Who will it be next?! I think Klein should be next!lol lol The reality is that Bashir had nothing to do with MJ's demise whatsoever; MJ did it to himself. It's funny how the MJ fans "mirror the man in the mirror"...MJ never took any responsibility for any of his actions, but always hung the blame on others...now his 'fanatics' are doing the very same thing; putting the blame on someone else instead of where it should really be;on MJ, and refusing to actually see MJ for who he really was; they have an excuse for everything.lol

Speaking of ego, MJ's ego was huge...According to Jason, he can attest to that one himself.

I'll try to slow it down a bit, and better proof read; sorry for the mistake! lol

BTW, I finally got my, All That Glitters book today in the mail (doing my 'happy dance'), can't wait to get started on it!lol

Lady C said...

Susana:

Being a person in my early 40's, I can remember the entertainer that Michael Jackson really was 'back then'. When he was still with the Jackson Five, I can remember how delightful he was and handsome looking. Now my son, who is 9 yrs. old, has a hard time believing that's what MJ really looked liked before all the freakishness took place...The one question he always asks me, is why MJ turned himself white? He says, "Momma, he looks funny like a clown". I tell him, "Yes, MJ does look funny and he was a very sick man who lost his way"...It's sad. Even my younger sisters who were both born in the early 80's, can't relate to the 'true' Michael Jackson...every since they were born, they just remember the 'whitewashed freaky' Michael, When Off The Wall/Thriller came out I still had a fondness for him and his music...But when BADD came on to the scene, that's when I did a 'double take' and said WTF?? There's a website that you can go to that describes the "many faces of Michael" that was interesting but yet comical and sad too...It's called the History of Michael Jackson's Face - http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

When you look at the website, it's very hard to imagine the drastic never ending changes that had taken place over the years to his face. Speaking of other black people who have lightened their skin color, I believe I saw somewhere online that Sammy Sosa has done the exact same thing, skin bleaching; he doesn't look black anymore like he used to...So crazy!!

Jessica:

I failed to mention that were on point, when you said that Bashir was influential on MJ doing the documentary...With that said, I guess it mustn't have been too much of a challenge for Bashir. All Bashir had to do was open his mouth to Michael and say the two magical words, Princess Diana, and that's all she wrote! LOL All reasoning and logic on MJ's part didn't register...He wasn't thinking at all what the possible repercussions would be. I do partially agree with the comment that Ian Halperin said in his book; that MJ's infatuation with Princess Diana was the start of his down fall...Although I really believe it started many years before when he first purchased Neverland; the 'kiddie dates' and the bizarre things that were to follow.

Jessica said...

Susana,

I totally agree. I think that regardless of the race of the fan, the smart ones think that Mike went way too far with his image, and can't tolerate the lies and the deception surrounding his change. There was no vitiligo, it was all based on self hatred. Remember what Bob Jones said in his book, that Mike was the "most inexplicableof racists" because he didn't like his own people. Even the Jacksons are slightly anti-black, the only Jacksons tha tmarried a black perosn was Rebbie and Jermaine! I think you were the one to paste that comment from TMZ that someone who had worked with Mike and Quincy Jones wo said that Mike didn't like black on himself and on others, tha the didn't think black was beautiful. I just wanna know what made him go off the deep end regarding the bleaching, the false natural vitiligo claims, the white children, etc. He did, as you pointed out, seem more militant in the 70s, but it could have been the time period as well. In the first Schmuley book, Mike talked about black people having natural rhythmn and he seemed mor elike an observer of blacks rather than seeing himself as one. Even on the Primetime Live interview, he didn't seem to want to identify with being black...that interview was disturbing, to me, in that regard (among other things).

I think black artists let it go to their heads when white audiences accept them. I don't get it. But I think that the newer MJ fans and some of the ignorant ones are implicitly allowing him to remain "white" by their repeated forgetfulness of this blackness. But ultimately, Mike was the one who should of loved his own color. There was a black professor that commented on Mike after his death that said "he would have still been alive had he stayed black". As a black person, I see what he means, since self-hatred does a number on your soul, but Mike needed more intense psychological help. Staying black wouldn't have changed the fact that he was a gay pedophile.

Lady C,

Hope you like the book. I understood everything that you said LOL. I was just pointing out that the fans blame Bashir but it was Mike who allowed it to happen. I think it's funny how they will blame everyone else for all of Mike's troubles when the person to blame is Mike himself, like you said. Desiree can show all the proofs in the world, all the victims can come out and speak, etc etc but the fans will believe wha tthey want to believe. Really this blog is just preaching to those tha talready think he was guilty and those that don't know anything about the cases and want to learn. The fans have made their mind up. I remember reading on Amazon a review for Chris Andersen's book and someone said that a fan was like even if they saw a video of Mike molesting a boy they still wouldn't believe it. I think truly that is how their minds work.

Sarah said...

Ladies

Here is the link


http://www1273.megaupload.com/files/36bd14aecb4bbdd22f500f2a742dbb46/Michael%20Jackson's%20Secret%20World.zip

Enjoy!

Lady C said...

Jessica:

The last comment you said about the fan on Amazon is scary! What has the world come to? If the video was of your regular everyday man molesting a child, you'd better believe that he would believe it...Such Bullshit!!

In regards to the comment you made about Jermaine and Rebbie being the closest ones in the Jacksons to being black, do you remember the song, "Word to the BADD", that Jermaine made about MJ right after BADD was released? Well, let's just say that Jermaine was absolutely right; probably a first time for him ever because whenever he tries to defend BADD Jacko, he looses all credibility. lol

I have to wonder though, MJ alway said that James Brown was his idol; he was "The Man", who greatly influenced his entertainment career...Remember the song by the Brown, I'm Black and I'm Proud...I wonder what was going on in MJ's mind every time he heard that song from Brown? Probably,"Say it loud, I'm black and I hate it". lol I've never heard, but one has to really wonder what Brown thought and if he really wanted to be on the same stage with MJ accepting his BET award? I think deep down that Brown despised the idea of being seen on stage with a freak who didn't know who the hell he was any more; he probably saw Jacko as a 'sell out'. Michael hated his race and those of his race; he tried to convince the public and Black America that they had the wrong image of him, but he was never able to live it down. He hated himself and his race and LOUDLY addressed that message to the entire world in not only himself but also through his children. IMO, it sucks to be a member of the Jackson Family! lol

Jessica said...

Sarah, thanks for the link. I just watched it and I think it was pretty fair to Mike even though I know the fans would think it was negative for him. It just shows that they view anything that is not 100% positive as bad. Also, as I suspected all along, J Randy Taraborrelli is a Michael Jackson cheerleader. Makes me think that “The Magic and the Madness”, at least the subsequent editions, was written as a Michael Jackson PR tool. Especially the hard-to-believe LMP sections.

Anyways, I think that Jordie sounded absolutely believable. He was very bright and articulate and I didn’t think for a second that he sounded coached. I think that was the beauty of it, that we got to hear the Gardner interview and the allegations in Jordie’s own voice. The cop Bill Dworin said that the drawings matched and he too looked absolutely believable. Mike paid because he was scared shitless. Jordie was most definitely a victim. I hated the way that JRT insinuated that the Chandlers did it for money. How the hell would he know? What pissed me the most though was the way that all these families assume that Mike would never do such a thing. Again, how the hell would they know, they weren’t there. I mean, there are victims and essentially these people are calling them liars. It’s best to say that you don’t know. I think that the fact that Bashir had all the people saying that they were never molested was what made it so fair.

Sandra Sutherland and Ray Chandler were both articulate and smart. It’s good to put a face to a name. I ask the fans “Do you think Sandra Sutherland is a liar?” Everyone can’t be liars. Even the LeMarques looked believable. I thought it was interesting what Corey Feldman said about the porn, that Mike would only stay over if he could have porn with him. Makes me think that he wanted to get Corey in the mood. Also, clearly Mike didn’t really like Brooke Shields in “that way” as he tries to make it seem. That was pretty funny; he liked Emmanual Lewis more. And Terry George saying that he could hear Mike masturbating over the phone and that he thinks that Mike probably didn’t think he reacted in the “appropriate way” to his masturbation questions was shocking. Terry was absolutely believable and I feel he was telling the truth.

I just hate how there are so much secrets and silence and money around this whole issue. When will we have the whole story? I’m also starting to think that maybe Mike was a gay guy that hooked up with pubescent boys when young men were around. But then again, he does fit the Ken Lanning profile of a preferential child molester, and he seemed absolutely taken with Jordie. I just want to know the whole truth. I believe some of the boys and their parents are lying about the extent of their relationship with Mike. Jimmy Safechuck says he wasn’t molested but then you have Bob Jones saying that he was told by Dileo while in Nice, France that Mike had written a love letter to Jimmy on a sheet and that there was a doodoo covered shit from him as well, that they had to quickly confiscate. Also the naked picture of Jonny Spence the cops found. See, I think these boys are lying.

Sarah said...

Jessica
Glad to see you enjoyed the documentary, it received less press than "Living with Michael Jackson" and I think that it is better. Bashir comes across less smarmy even sad at the way things have turned out, with a sense of impending doom. Let's face it, MJ brought most of the crap in his life on himself! I found Ray Chandler very sincere and Sandra Sutherland very convincing. The sections of audio of Jordan I found very sad, as you say he seems intelligent and articulate, unlike Gavin Arvizo, I have to say. Jordan was certainly convincing and sounded very sincere in his answers to Dr Gardner's questions. He did not realise that there was anything wrong with what MJ was doing, I think it was the girlie antics that pissed him off, ie if you don't do this with me you don't love me and the crying! I agree Terry George is believeable, he is well know in the UK he owns a chain of nightclubs etc. There is no reason for him to lie.

Rebekah said...

The boys who said they weren't molested could be lying, or they could be telling the truth because coercion confuses things -- if you said yes, or didn't say no, were you really molested? According to Jordie's testimony, he experienced a lot of coercion/guilt-tripping.

MJ believers/defenders/proselytizers forget that anything at all can happen privately, behind closed doors -- pedophilic behavior or whatever proclivity one wants to exercise. The following quote is from Fred Berlin, director of the Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins:

"If someone has a sex disorder, what's predisposing them has to do with the privacy of their sexual makeup. That's a whole separate issue from what they're like, their character, their temperament or personality -- the things we observe in them in daily interactions. If I'm a person that's sexually attracted to children, you and I can talk on a daily basis, but unless you know what I'm doing in my private time, you have no way of detecting that."

http://www.salon.com/life/sexual_abuse/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/05/18/priest

Jessica said...

Sarah, I thouhgt Jordie sounded sad as well. In my head, I thought that Jordie had the voice of a nerd (in a good way) because he sounded so smart. I think if the fans think he sounded coached it is because he really was just a smart kid! He did write a srceenplay with his father, after all. But now that I know how he sounds, I keep thinking of all the other stuff that he said, about the erections and kissing and all that, and I know he was telling the truth. Jordie and Jason are at least the 2 true victims of Michael Jackson.

But I beleive tha tnot all of the other boys are lying about not being molested, however, there are some key ones that I do believe are lying, namely Brett, Jimmy, and Jonathan. I believe the LeMarques saw Mac Culkin being fondled and I believe Blanca Francia that she heard him in the shower with one of the special friends. Manny Lewis seemed sincere in that he said hell no nothing happened. But I wil say that it might have not been sexual in a physical sense, but I personally believe that Mike may have had feelings for Manny. He just didn't act on them. He preferred Manny over Brooke Shields! I thought it was pretty creepy how Mike would continue going on and on over Mac Culkin's lips!

Rebekah, you are right with that quote. A pedophile is not going to make in obvious that he has a sexual interest in children. That's why it's silly to make statements about "knowing" someone is innocent. You wouldn't know because you weren't there. Ken Lanning said that many boys will outright deny the abuse even if presented with explosive proof that they were molested. Jordie said in his interview that Mike told him that he had masturbated with Mac, Wade, Jimmy, and Brett. Outside of Brett, Jordie said that he didn't really know if Mike actually touched the others. Maybe these men now are embarassed about the stuff they did with their older "special friend" Michael Jackson. And we have to remember that even pedos have preferences; they won't just molest any kid.

black male said...

They used you all up huh, dre?...so be it,...or are you now pimping on a more popular PRO King Of Pop site? You know where you can get more than 3 readers you have here..oh I know your integrity goes where the most attention is..good riddance of you

Desiree said...

black male:

Dre? Dree? It's Desiree. And why do you call yourself 'black male'? I thought you were 'TruthExposed'?

Secondly, I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of pimping or ho'ing, etc. on any other site. Are you talking about IMdB's Jacko board?

That is not a pro King of Pop site, although fans erroneously believe it is. Hence why they delete threads.

black male said...

First Call me what ever you want...you have been exposed as the fraud that you are...so call yourself a worn down shyster..second you go where you can find the attention you are so desperate for..you see dre, your integrity goes where the most hits are.. pro or con King Of Pop.. but hey maybe just maybe you'll get noticed.. as you know you sure as hell are not getting noticed here with the 2 or 5 recycled haters on this sorry site..oh well done with you...my worst regards to your mentor Diane Dimond..you both are all washed up...

Frenchie said...

I kind of love when MJ stans visit. It's like being at a sideshow without paying the price of admission. <3

Jessica said...

black male,

Do you really think people would waste there time making up shit about Michael Jackson? Do you really think that people who have never met him would create lies? You must be a moron or something. Why are you so obsessed with a gay pedophile? That's the better question. Why don't you refute the documents and new articles and transcripts that are on this site, rather than talking shit about the who read it? HE IS DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! And unless he's was on of those zombie types, he ain't coming back! Tell me, what goes on in a fan's head that makes them want to attach themselves to an image of someone that they don't even know?

Desiree said...

black male:

You are certainly ridiculous. Not much more to say on that front.

Susana said...

Lady C,

Reading your post make me feel nostalgic.

I'm in my early 40's too. I remember the Jacksons in some tv shows in my country. My cousin was a big fan of them. We were watching one of those shows and I was dancing like crazy in front of the TV and he was pissed because he couldn't see properly. They were very handsome with the afros and those splendid stage costumes. Michael had a very elegant body.
The best version of MJ is the original. His original nose gave his face a more mature and interesting look. When he smiled was perfection. His face had a perfect bone structure. In the 70's he wasn't as thin either.

Honestly, I was shocked when Thriller came out too, because it wasn't the Michael I remembered, but he was still looking so handsome and I was in that fan stage with my hormones awakening and fell totally in love with him and his music LOL. But by 1984 he started the big changes. I used to buy those fan magazines because they were like a monograph on MJ, lol, every new number was almost a new change in his face and he was looking uglier and more strange progressively. What he did to his lips and his beautiful skin colour should be considered a crime against the humanity. When Bad came out, this thing wasn't Michael Jackson any more.

Back then I thought he wouldn't be interested in me because I am blonde blue-eyed and... Ola Ray was so beautiful. My age was correct, my ethnicity I think wasn't a problem... only my gender LOL. In the handsome black men department, I replaced him by Eddy Grant LOL. Sorry, Jacko.

Sarah,

Thank you very much for the link. Very interesting documentary.
What I thought about Jordie, is maybe he was under some kind of medication. I suppose it wasn't easy for him to go through all that. Poor kid.