Talking to haters ONCE AGAIN
Guys, let me share some views with you on what we have here under the name of Desiree.
1) First let me tell you one thing – I truly marvel at your patience ( I always thought that Michael’s fans were the best).
The person you’ve been battling for hours and even days is a dedicated HATER of Michael Jackson and the point about liking Michael for his music is a complete LIE. When you hate somebody that much you cannot like the music either (same as it is impossible for me to like Marilyn Manson though his music may be interesting). A person’s creation is inseparable from his personality – especially in such a dramatic case like Michael Jackson’s.
Why this hater poses as a fan here I don’t know – probably to give a message to the world that a new rise in Michael’s popularity (records, documentary film, etc.) does not mean that the public is reconsidering their attitude to him as a human being, so that “you may be a fan and still hate”. However this is only one reason out of a thousand possible.
2) Our hater says in her blog that she is a 20 years smth ‘black’ student majoring in microbiology. She/he does produce the impression of a mature and educated person who even goes as far as referring to Machiavelli. As far as I know Machiavelli was a politician who was known for his ultimate cynicism (among other things he justified wars by the need to control birth rate).
Please correct me if I am wrong – since when have educated people with a scholarly mind started reading the Mirror? I remember the first time I mentioned ‘the Mirror’ as a source of information to some English people, they made me feel somewhat ashamed by laughing “We don’t read papers like that”. And these were not scholars – these were businessmen… But that was long ago though – has it changed since then? Is the Mirror considered now a reputable source of information?
3) Okay, so when it comes to Michael Jackson our intellectual Desiree is no longer choosy and is ready to believe every word of what the Mirror says (it does happen with some haters – anything is good for them as long as it feeds their hatred).
I checked up the story she/he referred to – about that drug which restricts the sex-drive allegedly given to Michael to suppress his ‘desire for young boys’. The story lived for 3 days (August 8-10, 2009) and was reported by numerous media outlets all of which pointed at ‘the Mirror’ as the source of their information.
I do not intend to advertise this article now so here is the gist of it 0nly (the most decent of the Mirror’s comments were selected for the summary with the main facts preserved): Some source reveals information about Jacko (yes, they use the name even after the man’s death!) that he received a certain drug to suppress his sexual urge. “The drug restricts men’s flow of testosterone-producing brain hormones”
Now if this drug was indeed given to Michael and if Michael knew what he was given and if all this is not a complete fabrication – the drug could be very well used for suppressing Michael’s normal heterosexual sex-urge which was probably rather powerful if some women noticed his erection during the concert (see Teva’s surprising remark to the Welcome to the hater’s site post ). If Michael was sexually very potent this could have been an issue with him – especially in a concert with so many screaming girls around him – and this does not necessarily have anything to do with boys.
The drug is used for a forceful decrease of sex urge in all men who have a history of sexual assaults (raping women, etc.). It is a sort of a chemical castration and considering the danger of it I really wonder if any male would agree to this procedure of his own free will. Even if the effect is reversible being potent is a sensitive issue for ALL men, so if some doctor did want to do this to a male I strongly suspect the man wouldn’t fall for the idea easily … unless the doctor forced him to… or didn’t tell him what he was doing…
Please remember that all this mental equilibrium is okay only in case all those “ifs” we began with are true – which I now doubt more than ever…
The Mirror goes on with the story: “Jacko first met the doctor in 2001 when he sought treatment for a broken foot after slipping on stairs at his Neverland ranch”. Well, Dr. Farshchian is a specialist treating arthritis and problems with ‘bones’, so he could deal with Michael’s broken foot as well as his back pain which he also suffered from.
“But unlike other medics who Jacko latched on to, Dr Farshchian, 47, refused to pander to his demands for non-stop prescriptions”…. Now this statement is highly disputable – the TMZ cites a letter attributed to Dr. Farshcian in which he recommends to his patient a powerful narcotic painkiller: “Buprinex is the potent narcotic I told you about last week. It is just like the D but better. I have everything ready”. “It’s a 5-7 day program that offers you the solution” . The solution to treat Michael’s pain or replace Demerol with? Both variants are possible, while there is no hint at suppressing any sex-urge, as you may have noticed.
“He tried to wean Jacko off Demerol, the narcotic painkiller widely linked to his death six weeks ago”. Let me correct the newspaper again. Firstly, DEMEROL WAS NOT FOUND in Michael Jackson’s system so it seems that Michael managed to beat this habit after all, and secondly, he died of a different medicine – PROPOFOL and if the newspaper does not know it, so much the worse for them.
Let us sum up. Now that we are almost through with the article what evidence have we collected on that sex-drug issue? Only what you’ve seen above. And who provided this wealth of information? As usual some unnamed ‘spokesman’ : “Asked if Dr Farshchian’s had prescribed drugs to Jacko to curb his sex drive, his spokesman confirmed: “Yes, that’s exactly it. He was trying to help Michael.”
The other source is Ian Barkley who is said by the Sunday Mirror to be “Jacko’s official photographer between 2002-06”. He allegedly claimed that” “Dr Farshchian was trying to help Michael. One treatment and concoction led to another (as is usual in any treatment). It was a slow progression to try to help Michael suppress some of his issues.” (which ones?)
And at another point the Mirror hints: “Of Jacko’s sleepovers, where children drank “Jesus Juice” wine from cola cans, the photographer said: “People in Michael’s circle thought that something inappropriate was going on when they’d all sleep together at Neverland Ranch”
Let us double check these hints with what the CBS news reported on June 2, 2004. The article also refers to Ian Barkley, Jackson’s photographer, adding that he worked for Michael Jackson for most of 2003 (and not for four years between 2002-2006 as the Mirror says). It quotes Ian Barkley saying about the Arvizos:
”Barkley insists Jackson never harmed the teen, and says the Brazil trip was simply a shrewd business decision. The goal was to draw attention away from the post-documentary scandal and refocus the spotlight on Jackson’s forthcoming album launch.”
“There’s no way anyone would try to hold them against their will. There’s no way Michael would allow it,” says Barkley, who worked with Jackson for most of 2003, and still has close relationships with both Schaffel and Wiesner.
“There was no conspiracy to abduct,” Barkley says. “I think the intent of the Brazil trip was actually to distance Michael from the family, temporarily, just so that the relationships were a little bit separated. The family was, from what I understand, they were actually enthused about going to Brazil.”
4) I would have surely been able to find more facts to disprove the Mirror article if I had more time and desire to do it. But if every particle of Desiree’s hatred for Michael Jackson is to be checked in the same way there will be nothing else for us to do here but struggle with her hate.
Of course if any of us have spare time for a thrilling discussion like that we can naturally involve ourselves in it. But I see this forceful involvement of Michael’s fans in the issues they would like us to discuss as an intentional move on the part of Michael’s haters. They want to entangle us in a non-stop discussion of their allegations, they want to shower us with their lies and expect us to incessantly refute them, and since there will be no end to these lies it means that we will never have time for anything else but being busy with these guys.
Therefore I have the following suggestion to Michael’s supporters – let us make a note of haters’ ideas but let us not remonstrate with them and try to talk them into changing their views. It is impossible to bring the “desirees” over to our side – they are professional haters who are exactly the ones who use the Machiavellian and Svengali methods they are referring to above.
5) Since it is not us, but them who are obsessed, I am very much afraid that Michael’s supporters should prepare themselves for new assaults from haters. It is clear now that this adventure of ours is not going to be plain sailing – same as they didn’t leave Michael alone they won’t leave us alone either – there will be haters masquerading as fans, new blogs and sites set up in fans’ names, real Michael’s fans fooled by fake ones and taken away from Michael’s mainstream, haters publishing secret mjj files and discovering new ‘witnesses’, so on and so forth… It seems we should really steel yourselves for a long and difficult journey.
Should we fight them? I don’t think so. Let us leave the haters alone with their hatred and let us never allow ourselves to use the lie and hate weapons they are employing. Let us move on to clear the environment of the lies they are polluting it with and search for the truth instead.
And let those who will choose between us decide for themselves.
P.S. Desiree, it wasn’t lost on me that your email starts with the words “jesusjuice”. So much for your love for Michael…