Skip to content

An angry talk about Michael Jackson’s haters and the general public under their spell. THE SHOW MUST GO ON?

July 28, 2011

This was supposed to be only an answer to a reader’s comment but developed into an angry cry at Michael’ s haters and those people who have not yet woken up to reality.

Ares: “i really believe that when it comes to MJ, people, even the most sane ones, lose their common sense and their ability to think straight.”

Absolutely.  When it comes to Michael Jackson people seem to lose all sense of proportion. They allow themselves the unthinkable – like bringing his underwear into the TV studio and showing it to the public as Diane Dimond did it (or making it look like it is his, which is essentially the same).  This episode is only one of the instances of mass public craziness in mistreating Michael Jackson – and if some people have not yet realized how low they have fallen in accepting this type of behavior let us imagine a similar thing done to Diane Dimond or Tom Sneddon, for example – I mean their underpants examined in the studio by the hosts of some popular talk shows (Larry King?).

Since no such thing is possible to imagine you will agree that the above situation is incredibly low, vulgar and even unreal, however it did happen to Michael Jackson when Diane Dimond trashed him on TV over some underwear found in some storehouse, which was probably not even his. I am sure that Michael was the only person in the world who was ever publicly humiliated by anyone in such an unspeakable and shameless way.

And the general public accepted it.

Of course the major part of the damage was done to Michael through the media’s malice and unfounded accusations in horrible crimes (which were never and couldn’t be proved as there were none), however it seems that the terrible disrespect the public displays for the man can also be the result of his life being turned into a sort of a reality show – people were allowed so much intrusion into his privacy that they crossed all possible and impossible borderlines. They were literally taken into his bed, were made near witnesses to his strip search via detailed reports from the scene and were encouraged to have a lively discussion of whether he was circumcised or not.

With so much familiarity with his body and intimate details it was only natural that the public was driven to a point when each and everybody began thinking that they could decide for him every aspect of his life – where to live and in which tone to speak, what pets to keep and how to spend his money and even (publicly) discuss whether he had sex with his wife or not.  Even now that Lisa Marie Presley has made it clear to the whole world that they had a passionate love affair for many years even after their marriage some people say they are not convinced and they have their own opinion about Michael Jackson and know better who and why he slept with.

Everyone is an expert on Michael Jackson’s private life. Everyone thinks he has the right to go on TV and dwell on it on every public forum – though all these people know is the nasty media gossip and their own fantasies and dirty thinking projected onto the man.

Is it normal behavior? I doubt it very much indeed.

And now this incredible type of behavior is being spread on Michael’s children – people find it normal to publicly decide whether they are his or not, and whose they are, and who is the best candidate for a father and so on and so forth. If it goes further this way we can expect public demands of the children’s blood tests made – because the public wants it and has the right to know!  THE SHOW MUST GO ON, you see?

People have become addicted to the show the media turned  Michael’s life into and are simply unwilling to press the shut-off button. And there are some who accuse others of drug addictions…  It is them who are drugged and addicted, it is them who are still hallucinating and don’t want to wake up to reality. All they need to do is a little bit of reflection on the absurdity and ruthlessness of their own behavior, however they are absolutely unwilling to look at their ugly selves – all they know is that they are bored and want to be entertained further …   And what could be more entertaining than new lies, new speculations and new nasty jokes about the guy who devoted his whole life to bringing joy and happiness into the lives of these people?

When it comes to Michael Jackson the public has developed double standards  – good manners and civility are reserved for their dear selves and crude barbarity is left for the guy who has been found innocent inside out and several times over but is nevertheless  regarded not as a human being, but as an animal and at best as a toy everyone wants to toss about, break into and look what’s  inside.

Between themselves the public thinks they are decent and well-behaved people possessing “morals” and values in life.  They respect other people’s rights and would never allow themselves to violate someone else’s privacy (God forbid intrude on their neighbors!). No, how could you think of them that way? They are civil people and know how to behave themselves!

But when it comes to Michael Jackson their mouth suddenly waters and they allow their most awful animal instincts to take over. The worst part of it is that it is a kind of a mass and universally accepted game where everyone is allowed to vivisect the guy, make unjustified comments, get away with horrendous innuendos, salacious stories and downright lies – and all of this is done to the man they know absolutely nothing about but harass in a most barbarian manner equal only to Nazi war criminals torturing their victims…

What’s wrong with you, guys? You think it to be normal?

Have you lost all sense of proportion? What imaginary world are you living it? What hallucinations are you seeing? Why do you consider yourselves better than a ragged Middle Ages crowd who relished the sufferings of someone accused of “witchcraft” and burned alive? Don’t you remember that you are dealing with the life of a human being? And not a fictional character of a show or an animal in a zoo?  Even animals are not allowed to be treated like that, let alone humans! And in addition to all that you are doing it to a person who has proven by all his life achievements, aspirations and ideals he staunchly adhered to to be the pride of your nation?

And if this is not enough for you now you are starting a similar sort of treatment for his children? You throw them into the center of your circus, abuse them with your repulsive remarks and still think that you are respectable human beings?

Does it need other nations to explain to you that you are highly delusional if you think that way?

Ares: “I was watching the other day a video where Dimond was invited in a news program and she was talking about MJ’s kids and at some point she stated that those kids are 100% not his. And the news host listened to her without even questioning the things that she was saying…He just listened to her and was nodding along.” And i was there watching at this disgusting thing, thinking to myself, i must be in the twilight zone. Those two people at that point were doing exactly the same thing that MJ was accused of. They were abusing his kids.

Exactly – they were abusing his kids right after Michael’s death, a month or so after he passed away, when the wounds were still very raw – and in their total insanity did not even notice what they were doing. The comparison to a twilight zone is very much to the point here. The people who allow things like that are indeed living in a different reality where everything is turned upside down and where nastiness is taken for civil talk, lies are presented as truthful facts, and insults are masquerading for objectivity.

Ares: On the other hand, lets say that those kids are not biologically his. So, what? Lots of Hollywood stars have adopted kids from all over the world. Elton John and his boyfriend adopted a baby in order to raise it. Why MJ didn’t have the right to have kids, whichever way he had them. He raised them perfectly well. Why this double standards with him? Why MJ and his kids are being treated like circus freaks?

Because in their desire to humiliate Michael and have fun at his expense the public has not noticed that they have turned into freaks themselves. They didn’t notice that they had lost all those qualities which make a human being human – they lost their ethics, decency, reason, the ability to reflect and a desire to sometimes look at themselves in the mirror and correct something in their demeanor.

I hate to say it but will probably have to – and these people want to be respected by the rest of the world?

108 Comments leave one →
  1. September 7, 2011 11:45 pm

    for all haters

    http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/p/stop-lies.html

    Like

  2. Chris permalink
    September 4, 2011 12:03 pm

    I wasn’t aware I had given this group the go ahead to speak 4 me as a part of Michaels fan base. If I wanna write to the Jacksons I’LL DO IT THANKS.

    They speak 4 themselves not everyone.

    Like

  3. shelly permalink
    September 4, 2011 5:27 am

    I wonder who those people think they are.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    September 4, 2011 5:13 am

    Have the people that wrote that letter forgotten that those same children that they are saying they are so concerned about would be very hurt reading that about their family members? Good or bad they love them for all the reasons that a child should love them. Because they are given love that is why Michael chose his Mother and essentially his family to care for them. The Estate is an entity without love but a bottom line. Michael was always willing to love and support his family in spite of news reports to the contrary. Most of the family do have their own projects that support them it is just in fields outside of music or behind the scenes.I think it is very ill timed and completely uncalled for. Do they think Michael would approve of his fans scolding his Mother and in essence his children because when you say family that is who it includes. However these people might feel about it those feelings are best left unsaid.

    Like

  5. September 4, 2011 12:18 am

    Here is a new open letter to the Jackson family from the Michael Jackson Accountability Network blog! It’s amazing! The truth hurts! http://mjanwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/an-open-letter-to-michael-jacksons-family/

    Though much in that letter is true, the overall impression of it is distressing.

    Like

  6. lcpledwards permalink
    September 3, 2011 10:28 pm

    Here is a new open letter to the Jackson family from the Michael Jackson Accountability Network blog! It’s amazing! The truth hurts! http://mjanwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/an-open-letter-to-michael-jacksons-family/

    Like

  7. September 3, 2011 8:32 am

    Michael’s Nephew Taj has Twittered about the Tribute, Katherine and the “Fans”.

    We are turning into the beast we swear we will fight on Michael’ behalf. Using the hated word Media is meaningless now as it encompasses ALL us who write and express opinion in public. The blows to this woman’s heart by us who claim to love, respect or support MJ’s legacy must be at times unbearable.

    We “Fans/Supporter/Advocates” are much like the Journalists and Analysis during the trial. The sane and fair minded are being drowned out by the ignorant, malicious and sometimes agenda driven among us.

    Katherine Jackson is one of the few family members who was able to get a daily seat in 2005 and now must endure this again. Her son, Michael Jackson is on trial for his life. This woman could only watch as the Media turned her son into a monster for sport, watched as they used the power of their voice to ensure he would be terrorized, ostracized, and had his personal and financial endeavors hindered for their pleasure.

    She watched as the child she raised move through a world of carnal curiosity and remorseless cruelty with the politeness and a grace she instilled in him. The same she is now displaying, the same that many used against him and her because this now society considers such things weaknesses, some type of idiocy of people they expect perfection from.

    There was a hunting ritual performed on Michael by his foes which is now performed on his Mother by his Fans: Persistence hunting.

    I’d hate to think it would be we who were to cause the children losing another parent so soon in life.

    https://twitter.com/#!/tajjackson3

    Like

  8. August 29, 2011 10:54 pm

    “Both Chopra and Boteach are going on and on about drugs”

    Kaarin, if these people are just talking about drugs without focusing on how the addiction started they are biased, unwilling to see the truth and are probably even hostile to Michael. I see absolutely no reason why we should read the opinion of these men about him – it will surely be one-sided and twisted.

    As far as I remember when speaking about Michael’s latest environmental song Chopra called him “paranoid” because of the security measures taken when passing the song. What can a man like that teach others if he doesn’t understand that Michael was indeed haunted every day of his life?

    And he calls himself a friend of Michael Jackson?!! With friends like that who needs enemies?

    Like

  9. August 29, 2011 9:14 pm

    I made a post some time ago re Michael´s search for the spiritual. Both Chopra and Boteach are going on and on about drugs. I don´t think they can appriciate Michaels medical history and draw their conclusions based on that.Don´t buy their books.

    Like

  10. August 27, 2011 6:43 pm

    I want to draw your attention to Michaels feelings re all the tabloid
    frenzy.Please look up om You tube the song:wanna be startin something,it has to be the one posted by DalekGASP with the lyrics only.
    Pay attention to lyrics at 2.08 and again at 3.13.There used to be a fantastic music video for this song,long removed from Youtube by Sony.
    the lyrics I refer to are on 2.08 and again at 3.13. There is a bacchanal with a person (MJ)lying on a table and covered with all kinds of edible things.The lyrics…You are a vegetable..they hate you..still they hate you..you are just a buffet..they eat off of you
    ..they eat off of you..aiijj!The table is surrounded by lightly clad female dancers and others.
    If anybody happens to have the video in question ,please post it.

    Like

  11. Lauren permalink
    August 16, 2011 7:08 pm

    My thought was for Ms. Katherine and the children…you know, out of the area, celebrate their dad, her son…I imagine she knows what’s coming in trial and Global Live most likely
    presented this concert as a big, positive tribute and honor for Michael. Those of us here and those focused solely on the trial are also doing our best in that regard. Katherine was at court everyday in 2005 and she knows what’s in store…who are we to tell her what to do with this? However, Global obviously is profit focused; it appears one of their promoters is also involved with LaToya’s business and papa Joe and maybe Leonard Rowe are involved I’m just uncomfortable with so many fans criticizing Katherine, myself included sometimes.
    Who are we really to do that? Personally, I agree about the timing but it is the court that delayed the trial. Someday, with the Estate’s blessing, there will be a wonderful, loving tribute to Michael…organized the way he deserves. For now we will have Cirque.

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:33 pm

    That is an excellent point Lauren, about some happy distraction, though I feel that the timing is not good. The upcoming trial is going to take all of our concentration. As much as I would like some distraction I think it will have to wait until a verdict is in. We need to come together before and during the trial and keep our focus on justice for Michael that is what we are here for. After the trial, with help from God maybe we will be able to have a celebratory concert event without KISS or Gene Simmons. After that maybe he will have to pay to be in that concert instead of getting paid to do it.

    Like

  13. Lauren permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:17 pm

    I’m guessing that Mrs. Jackson had no clue about Simmon’s statements. I’m also guessing that it is Global Live who is responsible for the acts they are signing and they didn’t have a clue, didn’t do their homework and are primarily interested in profit. However, Simmons knows and went for the bucks anyway. I supported the concert thinking it was a way to
    bring some joy and distraction during the coming trial. Not anymore.

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 5:59 pm

    I don’t think that the family is clueless, I think that it is just certain members that are either penniless without him and his largess and are seeking their own monetary reward through the concert. It is truly a shame that the members of the family do not get along with the estate and feel cheated. Michael left things the way they were because he knew that his family. primarily his father were not that good in business.As far as I can see Joe Jacksons reign as the provider and head of that family ended when Michael was 5 years old and picked up a microphone. Michael became the head of that family on that day.SInce that day the only role Joe Jackson played was that of a bullying manager of a young musical group, He has no business anywhere near Michael’s business dealings and the sad part is that other members of the family seem to still have some sort of respect for him.Rest assured that anytime you see something like this happen and certain members of that family are behind it it is from some type of misplaced loyalty to him. This concert just like coutless others business dealings that have become a fiasco since his death are always related to that man and the family members that think that they owe him something more than Michael and his legacy.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    August 16, 2011 3:26 pm

    Gene Simmons? Of all people? Why not Diane Dimond? Or Tom Sneddon? I can’t believe how clueless Michael’s family is!

    Like

  16. August 16, 2011 10:28 am

    An open letter from Howard Weitzman, on behalf of the Estate Of Michael Jackson, regarding the tribute concert:

    /large

    Sent August 15:2011

    Like

  17. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2011 7:15 am

    Here is a new blog where you can go to vent about the upcoming “tribute” concert featuring Gene Simmons. This is called the Michael Jackson Accountability Network, and it was last updated in February when the kids were interviewed on Good Morning America.

    http://mjanwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/fans-call-for-boycott-of-tribute-concert-for-michael-jackson-by-global-live-events/

    Here is a statement from the MJJ Community fan club encouraging fans to boycott the concert: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/michael-jackson-news/mjjcommunity-official-statement-about-michael-forever-tribute

    Alan Duke is the CNN reporter for all things Michael related… he is aware of the fan reaction to the announcement today of KISS’s addition to the tribute concert and has stated he will keep updating his reports to that effect. http://twitter.com/#!/AlanDukeCNN

    Here is the FB page “Fans Against the Michael Jackson Tribute Concert”: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fans-against-Michael-Forever-Tribute/156384484435761

    Like

  18. August 16, 2011 7:04 am

    Seriously, even the cast at TMZ is like – the hell is going on? This man called Michael a ped-le, why would he even be approached?

    Like

  19. Lauren permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:56 am

    Tatum Marie: Agree with you about that.

    Like

  20. August 16, 2011 6:30 am

    Thank you for the link. Maybe if the estate would have been involved in the concerts he would have never been booked anyway.

    Like

  21. August 16, 2011 5:44 am

    Waiting for an official statement, but I saw via twitter that Kiss may have been dropped from the concert. You can keep an eye on @mjsunifc twitter page. Also, according to @mjsunifc “It is my understanding this was a decision made by Global Live events to book KISS. I don’t think they consulted w/ the Jacksons beforehand”

    Like

  22. August 16, 2011 3:39 am

    @Julie
    Hi, Just the article I needed. Can you show me where Jennifer Batten refuted his claims? I can’t believe that idiot is going to perform at Michael’s tribute.

    Like

  23. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 1:11 am

    Gene Simmons and his band, KISS, will be performing and Michael Jackson tribute in Wales. I do not understand how he could even be asked and why on earth he would agree after the complete lies and garbage he said about Michael after he died and then again last year, which was refuted by Jennifer Batten.

    Like

  24. August 10, 2011 7:12 pm

    Words from a voice little heard with a big message about Michael.
    Courtsey of MJJC’s: MsCassieMollie

    Like

  25. Taro Nuss permalink
    August 6, 2011 8:01 am

    There is a new book out that tells Michael’s story from the point of view of a woman very much like Debbie, or Blanket’s mother, about her relationship with Michael. It’s a wonderful vindication of who he was and what he stood for and how hurtful the allegations were to him. What I liked about this book is that it makes you see the loving, inner Michael. The rewarding things is that, unlike our sad-sack reality, the writer allows Michael a happy outcome. It’s a true vindication of not only the man but also the artist. I think of the book as a primer for people who have formed all of their opinions by reading and listening to tabloid trash because this book shows them the real Michael, and that is sweet indeed. The book is called VOID. The author is Kris Heywood, who calls this an “alternate history vindicating Michael Jackson.” It’s on Amazon.com. It made me understand Debbie Rowe’s and Blanket’s mother’s motivations much better.
    I think Debbie was and is a true friend of Michael’s. She only opted out because she couldn’t take the negative media circus any longer. She gave him two somethings that made him happier than he had ever been before. If things had gone the way Michael wanted he would have had a dozen kids and would have loved each one the same way he loved Prince, Paris and Blanket. One of the tragedies of his life was that he was born to be the father of many and it was denied him. The skin-color thing is so totally beside the point that it’s laughable. Every person who comments negatively on his relationship to his kids citing skin color is only showing his/her own lack and ignorance.

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    August 6, 2011 5:26 am

    Hi everyone,

    Some of you may be wondering if you are seeing things as some comments are missing from this post. After thinking long and hard about the direction of the comments, we were faced with a decision that was both unprecedented and necessary.

    While this blog is all about free and open discussion, we felt that the tangent the comments took over the last few days was beginning to overtake the true purpose of why we are all here.

    The vindication of Michael Jackson and the restoration in the public consciousness of the truth of Michael’s innocence and integrity remains, and is, our paramount concern and aim. We felt that the misunderstandings and some of the statements on the blog were counter-productive to our focus on this.

    Lynette and Deborah spent time today cleaning up the board, leaving the comments that remained true to our focus of vindication here. We would be grateful and deeply appreciative if no further comments addressing the issues of recent days could be posted. Of course, feel free to post your replies as usual in relation to any of the comments you now see on this page and in response to Helena’s original post.

    We would both like to assure everyone here that all your contributions are hugely valuable and important to the flow of information and exchange of ideas. We are happy to say the recent conflicts have now been resolved with everyone concerned and we are now looking forward not backward.

    Our deep regards to all of you.

    Deborah and Lynette.

    Like

  27. August 5, 2011 2:29 pm

    I hope P will overcome her fling with twitter.It seems there is little of appropriate parenting going around. Every aunt ,uncle ,grand father involved in their own thing relating to their father. Maybe starting school will have some effect. P is already 13 yo. The best home for a kid that age is a full library in the home and a parent to pick up a good,serious book, like one on history for example, to read.At that age
    some adult (and I do not mean porn!)literature can be intoduced.It helps
    with finding your identity and where you are in this time and place.Too
    bad that they lost their parent far too early.

    Like

  28. Lauren permalink
    August 5, 2011 8:08 am

    Yes, Michael did not fit into a little box any longer with boundaries and limits that we seem to need to make sense of anyone or anything. He pushed hard against those
    boundaries around sexuality, gender, race, national identify and lots more. A black man
    with a white face made people very uncomfortable, still does. I really believe that is the
    origin of such obsession about his surgeries, skin and nose. When we can’t pigeonhole someone we criticize, ostracize, denigrate and make small in our own minds so we don’t have to deal with the uncomfortable fact of our own biases. Make sense?

    And that doesn’t even address the power and influence he had and how the power-ful viciously went after him for that. And how did they? By focusing on quite menial things like his nose and supposed surgeries, his pets, home and personal nature. Now all that has become written on so many folks’ belief system, they can’t see the man at all. Someone recently said that the question to ask those who still repeat old myths is “How did you come to your conclusions about Michael Jackson?” How, indeed.

    Like

  29. August 5, 2011 7:10 am

    Something which may help put the “self-hate” ideology and the reason for propagating it into prospective if not to rest.

    Because this site is about Michael Jackson I chose a passage from a book concerning him; furthermore, the concept under discussion it not an ambiguous generalization, but an attempt to advance psychological conditioning meant for social programming.

    Michael Jackson & Television Before Thriller
    by Matthew Delmont, Ph.D.

    “The figure moves from ‘cute, young, Black singer’ (i.e. your racial identity is legible, and hence, ‘we know who you are’) to ‘weird, unfixed racial identity’ in his adult years

    (i.e., your racial identity is illegible and incomprehensible according to the codes of American racial meaning, hence, ‘we have no idea whom you’ve become’). This has been a constant source of news stories, perhaps since the release of the Thriller album in 1982. […] The television spectacle and Jackson’s disclosures on it do the cultural work of locating and then………… fixing race on the body—skin and nose.23”

    {P.10, Para 2} http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol3no7/3.7MJ-Television-7.pdf

    Like

  30. August 4, 2011 9:40 pm

    So true!

    Like

  31. August 4, 2011 9:27 pm

    One reason for writing about Josephine is;Success is the best revenge.
    Usually not possible if we or I compare with those like Michael and Josephine!

    Like

  32. August 4, 2011 9:17 pm

    Indeed Kaarin:

    What I also find so interesting about Josephine story is how closely her dream — and actuality of adopting lots of children — 12 wasn’t it in all? — echoed the desire Michael often voiced.

    Mike spoke of ‘World Council for children,’ while 50 years earlier Josephine called her home a ‘ World Village:”showplace for brotherhood.”

    Truly a remarkable Black woman.

    Like

  33. August 4, 2011 9:04 pm

    A little more on Josephine;She bought Chateau de Milandes near Paris
    where she lived some time with her husband and the children.The marriage broke because she had to constantly tour to bring home the
    money for this costly lifestyle.She knew many of the artists and intellectuals of her time, also later Diana Ross, Lisa Minelli and others saw her perform.She was active in the NAACP movement and spoke standing next to Martin Luther King in 1963.-Later, after the war, when
    economy got tight Princess Grace(Kelly) and Rainier III of Monaco helped her.

    Like

  34. August 4, 2011 6:59 pm

    The concept applies to both sexes, not male only.Michael was not the first black entertainer with ideals of harmony and understanding between
    races. Josephine Baker made her career in France and became quite rich.
    She bought a chalet, a castle in France, adopted 12 children of different races and nationalites,was married to a white French musician,later divorced as she had to be on tours to constantly to bring in money.On top of this she was active in the French resistance movement for which she was much honored and received varoius medals.
    She made 3 trips to the US.Only during the 3.rd fully appriciated.Later her economy sufferd though she did in the long run manage to hold the large family of 12 children and herself together.She worked to her dying day. In France she was given a full honorable military funeral with people of importance and masses present.

    Like

  35. August 4, 2011 6:13 pm

    A response to lynande 51´s post Aug.3rd 3.16 am 2011.Regarding the concept or remark “self-hating-black man”,a venomous concept created by the media to divide and rule.And somehow standing in opposition to “white and supposedly middleclass”,this latter being a wide and diffuse concept with negative as well as positive traits.Too long to go into details.Some positive being doing well in school, academic ambitions and good manners,these being something Michael wanted his children to embrace. As did many other black families.Unfortunately in many US big city ghettos kids of all ages took it to mean :acting white.
    This leading to academic failure, dropout and ill´s of streetlife.
    In no way is this the only fact that has made life hard for black people.Black people have contributed in many positive ways to American culture.

    Like

  36. nan permalink
    August 4, 2011 8:22 am

    i love this site and as i have said many times, i get so much info that can be shared, i just feel that i have spoken to that person who runs the negative site regarding mj on other sites and i sense their frustration because the truth is the truth..bravo to all the people who write the articles and post opinions on this site..it is kinda like the wicked witch melting to me.
    .at any rate , as far as bigotry and mj goes…touchy subject , but i am white and have talked to other white people about the accusations..most of the people i talk to are retired teachers ,or have a college education..when they are given the facts about the evidence and it is irrefutable..the subject then turns to his changing skin color…this has happened to me many times ..i dont know what that says about human nature or what ..i will leave it at that,,but molestation should not have to connection to disease or plastic surgery and yet educated people over look it..but it is easy to get off topic with mj because he is a riveting and charismatic personality ..people just could not take their eyes off him ..love or hate him.

    Like

  37. Teva permalink
    August 4, 2011 3:28 am

    “I do believe that Michael is almost like a religious figure to many of us.”

    Not to me. I sincerly hope in years to come the extreme fanbase does not turn him into a god, but I fear some have already.

    Like

  38. TatumMarie permalink
    August 4, 2011 1:34 am

    @rockforeveron
    I agree he did the traditional thing.

    Like

  39. Julie permalink
    August 4, 2011 12:24 am

    @rockforeveron – I wouldn’t say he got with women much younger because Lisa was only 10 years younger. Diana Ross is old enough to be his mother but with Lisa, she’s not old enough to be his daughter. I saw Lisa in a different light until she said (when speaking about molestation) — I honestly can not say what happened I wasn’t in the room. She has been speaking about Michael for too long to not know that a comment like that can cause problems.

    Just to clarify – when I was giving the span I was speaking of the fact that except for Madonna who was Michael’s actual age, the other girls he was seen with were much younger (in my opinion). When I say that I mean more than a couple of years younger. Tatum was 5 years younger; Brooke was 6 years younger and LMP was 9-10 years younger. Diana was 14 years older.

    I absolutely agree with you about her ambivalence regarding the molestation that Oprah seems to continually want to get everyone’s opinion on. Lisa Marie married him and was with him for (according to her) 6-7 years total. She knew he wasn’t a child molester and she should have said that she didn’t believe he was. Why would anyone “want” to be with a child molester. He answer angered me as well.

    I just meant that I saw her in a different light because at least she was being honest about her feelings instead of what she had typically done acting as though he master manipulated her into their marriage, etc.

    Like

  40. August 4, 2011 12:20 am

    @ Deborah Ffrench,

    “Sadly, Seven, it is not only the haters who made and make assumptions about Michael Jackson. From some of his friends, to people he worked closely with, to fans, media and family, it seems nearly everyone projected their ideas, values and images onto Michael.”

    So incredibly true. Whatever Michael offered it was never enough. A tug of war which demanded he choose and no matter what he said or did there is a need by some to PROVE he could “be like me” “do, think and act as I would”.

    Michael is “dissected” with an abundance of academic, psychological and racial objectivity babble which is totally lacking in proper research or factual data. I find it astonishing some have all this LOVE & RESPECT for MJ the man, but feel blacks are inferior only worthy when Blacks take on White characteristics (whatever the hell White characteristics are.).

    I contend some MJ detractors and Fans buy into the belief Michael wanted nothing more than to be white which validates their feeling of cultural superiority. They find it all too easy to pretend MJ was Caucasian and that is what really appeals, what makes him physically attractive to them and makes it easy to accept his many personal and artistic accomplishments.

    This obsession with the color of skin, shape of features and body type is one of our greatest drawbacks to getting on with coming together, learning and educating one another to prepare for what is to come.

    Ask anyone who just barely survived Katrina or a bloody war zone, they did not chose to seek safety and shelter according to the color of the occupants within.

    Like

  41. August 4, 2011 12:07 am

    I don’t know if we will ever get the entire truth out of her about the reason for the split.

    I wonder where the letters she wrote him are, MJ was a packrat who kept everything so they’re gonna turn up one day… as will other letters…

    @Suzy

    That photo is from Bill Branca’s wedding, Priscilla knew the Branca’s.

    @TatumMarie

    I may be sounding crazy here, but I think with Debbie he was still kinda trying to do it a little more traditionally. What I mean is, I don’t believe MJ ever wanted a surrogate. I don’t believe he wanted a stranger to give birth to his kids. I think if he’d wanted that we would have seen 20 kids from MJ in the last 15 years. I think Debbie was perfect for him because he’d known her so long, she knew everything about his skin and lupus, and he really trusted her and I also think he liked her. I think he loved strong women and he loved tomboys – he rode motorbikes, she rode motorbikes, she loved animals and horses, he did, she didn’t care what people thought of her, neither did he. I don’t think he was in love with her, but I think he really liked those things about her. I think Debbie is a much stronger woman than Lisa.

    I think it’s the same with Blanket’s mother, I don’t believe she was a surrogate, his body language in the first version of the story says it all.

    What’s interesting about the B thing is that he isn’t the only guy in his family to do that – Jackie had his “adopted” daughter Brandi (really his, come on now), and Joe had Donte brought into the house that he claimed was “adopted” too although, again, he clearly belongs to Joe. So Blanket’s mother wasn’t the only woman willing to give up her baby to a Jackson.

    Like

  42. August 4, 2011 12:03 am

    @Suzy
    Thanks for the pic. So Priscilla didn’t have the story right on Oprah because if this is when he asked Lisa to come along – Lisa would’ve been at least 20ish, because Michael is 29 or 30 here. Why would she say 16 on Oprah? Is she getting it confused with her and Elvis?

    Like

  43. August 3, 2011 11:55 pm

    @rockforeveron
    Your absolutely right about Debbie Rowe and all Lisa’s inconsistencies. Michael always felt it would be appropriate to having a loving marriage relationship before children. He wanted to do things the traditional way and didn’t work out.

    @Julie
    I wouldn’t say he got with women much younger because Lisa was only 10 years younger. Diana Ross is old enough to be his mother but with Lisa, she’s not old enough to be his daughter. I saw Lisa in a different light until she said (when speaking about molestation) — I honestly can not say what happened I wasn’t in the room. She has been speaking about Michael for too long to not know that a comment like that can cause problems.

    Like

  44. Suzy permalink
    August 3, 2011 11:49 pm

    @ Julie

    “So when MJ said that he had been asking about Lisa Marie to Diane Sawyer there is at least some corroboration although Michael said he asked John Branca to find out about Lisa, not that he called Priscilla.”

    There’s a picture about Michael and Priscilla from about 1987. They had a dinner together. I don’t know what was the occasion. I think probably this was when he asked her to take LMP with her.

    @ rockforeveron

    “I think it’s funny people try and say Mike got into the marriage BECAUSE of Scientology and as a way for them to help clean up his image. If Mike thought the Scientologists could help disguise him being a pedophile or gay he would’ve signed up, surely? But Mike had absolutely no interest in it. Should tell people enough.”

    I agree. IMO Scientology had nothing to do with getting them together, although when they found out about their relationship they were happy about it and encouraged LMP to divorce her first husband and marry MJ as they hoped that LMP could get Michael join. But I don’t think they had to encourage LMP much because she was in love anyway. They say the way Scientology gets celebrities join and stay is blackmail. They try to find some dirt on celebs and then blackmail them with that. Like you said, the fact Michael never joined tells us they could never find anything on him! And I bet they asked LMP about their private life trying to find some dark secret.

    Like

  45. August 3, 2011 11:02 pm

    Debbie was sort of an opportunist in that she caught him at a weak moment and achieved her goal of having sex with Michael.

    Michael had already seriously considered having kids with Debbie before Lisa Marie came into the picture. From 1991 he was thinking about it but Debbie said he wanted to try and have a real family first, so then he met Lisa and he thought that was actually going to happen, but when that didn’t work out, he went back to his original plan and I think he was so hurt by Lisa and in my personal opinion, by other women he’d been with in his life (the older woman who cheated on him on the Glenda tapes, Diana Ross, other women…), that he just wanted a family fast. He was done with trying to fall in love and trying to meet the perfect woman and I think if he felt that even someone like Lisa who had her own money and name couldn’t handle having his kids, then he just didn’t know what else to do.

    I posted that body language analysis of MJ/Lisa on Sawyer and the guy points out Lisa frowning when she says they were together for “four months.” Why did she frown? Because she was lying, they were both covering up for each other and the fact that she had cheated on her previous husband with MJ. In that same interview she says she was planning to meet him at his Puerto Rico stop in the DWT before he cancelled – that was in November, 2 months before she says in that same interview they got together. Then in later interviews she admitted that their relationship had started before the allegations, which is setting the scene all the way back before June 1993.

    @Suzy

    She also said in interviews that she became very ill after their divorce.

    There’s interesting info you can find from Scientologists. Lisa Marie collapsed in 1997 after going through the Scientology “purif” a detox program because she was basically having a mental breakdown but because Scientology doesn’t believe in psychiatry they were trying to cleanse her body. Anyway, before the National Enquirer announced this, someone on a Scientology forum in 1997 said that the next story a tabloid was going to post on Lisa Marie was going to be accurate… then we get the NE story about how Lisa was suicidal because of her breakdown with Mike. Right after she comes out of hospital is when we see Lisa and Mike back together again in 1997.

    A couple of Scientologists also say that Mike had been with another Scientologist much much earlier than Lisa, early 80s…

    I agree, Lisa wanted Mike to become a Scientologist and that was the dealbreaker over their pregnancy. Their body language when certain issues you can see they’re both fighting over in the Sawyer interview is kinda funny.

    I think it’s funny people try and say Mike got into the marriage BECAUSE of Scientology and as a way for them to help clean up his image. If Mike thought the Scientologists could help disguise him being a ped-le or gay he would’ve signed up, surely? But Mike had absolutely no interest in it. Should tell people enough.

    And I think it’s funny Bob Jones says their marriage is a sham – and yet he says Lisa wanted to get back with him. Why would anyone want to get back into a sham marriage?

    Like

  46. Julie permalink
    August 3, 2011 10:57 pm

    Weighing in on the LMP and MJ story, I remember thinking it was totally bizarre that they got married, but more on her part than his. I mean who didn’t want to be married to Michael Jackson. For me it was because they were not photographed prior to the marriage (that I can remember) nor was there a lot of talk about a relationship with her and then suddenly they are married. It was much the same for me when it was announced that Tom Cruise had married Mimi Rogers. However, if you go by MJ’s history — he was either with women much older or much younger than him. Not that he couldn’t have gotten anyone that he wanted — but Priscilla said on the Oprah interview which was was just a Michael bashfest – that Michael had called her when LMP was 16 and asked if he could go to dinner with Priscilla and would Priscilla please bring Lisa Marie because he really wanted to meet her. Priscilla stated that Lisa was in school and therefore wouldn’t be able to come. So when MJ said that he had been asking about Lisa Marie to Diane Sawyer there is at least some corroboration although Michael said he asked John Branca to find out about Lisa, not that he called Priscilla. In any event, LMP showed all of the signs of the bitter, scorned woman after the divorce and I can see where she would be upset that ever single time she would try to promote something after they had split up the interviews always swung around to her relationship with Michael. She could have taken the high road, but most of the time she chose to bash him too. I can totally see where she would feel extreme guilt after his death because he never said anything negative about her publicly.

    I don’t know if we will ever get the entire truth out of her about the reason for the split. She claimed it was because of his drug use and his enabling entourage; he claims it was because she promised she would have his children right away and then reneged. He stated several times that he wanted children so badly and yes, I would have been more than hurt if he came home and said basically if you won’t do it Debbie will. I would have had a few choice words with Debbie had I been Lisa (not that it would have done any good), but Debbie was obviously trying to wedge herself in Michael’s life and what better way to do it than to have a man’s child. That guarantees at least 18 years of being in someone’s life (for most people).

    But when I watched LMP’s 2010 interview with Oprah I did see her in a different light. She was willing to admit that she was angry and hurt over the divorce and while I didn’t care for everything that she said (because once again she’s not being 100% honest in my opinion regarding the reason for the split and the drug issue), you could really tell how much she did love him. I mean how sad it must be for the current husband to have his wife openly mourning her ex-husband. It’s just my opinion that MJ and LMP didn’t allow themselves enough time to decide what they both wanted and really get to know each other before getting married so quickly. Further, LMP had her mother in her ear dissing Michael and questioning Michael’s motives. It is also my understanding that LMP’s ex-husband was on the bashing wagon as well and I have to agree with LMP’s statement that she didn’t want to get into a custody battle with him over their children. Not having his children full time would have been devastating to him, which is why I think he opted for the surrogate route and that way he was assured that he would have full custody. Another problem that I could see was the religion issue. Michael’s belief system was entirely different than hers. As much as he loved her, I cannot imagine that he would be willing to allow his children to be raised as Scientologists and that would have been a problem later on.

    I heard him say in an interview around 2001 when he was promoting Invincible that he wanted to get married again, but because he had been through 2 terrible divorces he wasn’t sure if and when it would happen. In the Shmuley tapes he did acknowledge that it would be difficult for a woman to be married to him because he was always on the go and felt women needed to be in one central place to call home and also that he would give a lot of himself to his causes for children which would make a wife feel as though she was on the back burner.

    It breaks my heart for him that he didn’t get to have the marriage/family life that he said in earlier interviews that he wanted and felt his life would not be complete without it.

    I also feel that if Diana Ross had been willing to be a cougar at that time he would have married her in a heartbeat and even said so in the early 80’s.

    Like

  47. TatumMarie permalink
    August 3, 2011 10:28 pm

    Okay, A Pandoras box has just been opened. Lisa Marie divorced Michael at the end of the day, then obsessed over him years afterward. She mentioned some things that she did wrong in the relationship which involved her ex-husband, you have a scientologist who is trying to immix with Jehovah’s witnesses’ teachings, so it’s no wonder the marriage didn’t work. It’s not really fair to base a belief on Lisa’s words alone when Michael has never spoken about it. If anything, you would file for separation as a bluff – not divorce – Lisa clearly has issues.

    Shyster characters always used documents to control Michael whether it was contracts, lawsuits, extortion, etc. Why would she take the same route?

    Like

  48. Suzy permalink
    August 3, 2011 9:59 pm

    @ Lynette

    I never doubted that the marriage of MJ and LMP was real. And especially after those angry interviews she gave around 2003, everybody should have known it was real. Because you don’t get that angry over a fake relationship! I don’t say that it was great that LMP publicly bashed Michael, she should have remained civil and gracious like Michael – ie. keeping things those are private private. But you often see this in relationships those go wrong, that people bitterly bash each other after that. But it can only generate such passionate bitterness if it was real in the first place.

    Oh, and just listen to her first album – and to an extent also her second album. I think a lot of songs are about Michael. Again bitterly bashing him. Because it was real. She also said in interviews that she became very ill after their divorce. Again you don’t get in such condition over a break up if the relationship wasn’t real. And you don’t keep on obsessing about your ex-husband for years and even decades if it wasn’t real. So much that Oprah warned her that she should think of her current husband and stop obsessing about Michael because the current husband could lose his patience.

    “She wanted him to do something for her; he wanted her to have his children. She refused and the fighting started. She thought that she could manipulate him with the promise of children and he stubbornly refused to be manipulated and said he had found someone who would. She stood her ground and so did he. “

    I agree this is what happened. Remember when LMP told Oprah that she only filed for divorce as a bluff. And I think Michael called her bluff because he was not gonna get blackmailed by anybody. So yeah, both were very stubborn.

    I’m only speculating but I personally think Scientology might have had something to do with LMP’s refusal to give him children. I bet Scientology wanted Michael badly. I can’t imagine they didn’t. So they might have tried to manipulate their marriage through LMP. Telling her to give him ultimatums to get him join.

    Like

  49. August 3, 2011 8:53 pm

    I have been and remain ashamed of my own country – the US – for how it has treated Michael Jackson. I know he’s been berated and maligned by media in other countries but I cannot speak to those – only my own. Among many other things that are increasingly shameful goings-on here in the U.S., this nation’s treatment of this man is something I’ll always feel shame about.

    One of Michael Jackson’s favorite songs was “Man in the Mirror” for a reason. He lived the that song. I know of few others who did. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, perhaps.

    Often when I tire of putting out facts upon facts to vacuum-packed media-saturated ignorant people who refuse to absorb or even consider them, I tell them to look in their own mirror – because therein lies the problem with “Michael Jackson”. Their problem with “Michael Jackson” is within themselves. (I tell them, “The problem with Michael Jackson is YOU”). Sometimes they just get quiet. Sometimes the explode in a self-righteous huff. People don’t like it when you put the mirror up. Michael was the mirror, too. When they repeat the media meme that “he bleached his skin because he didn’t want to be black”, I correct them. I tell them: “no, it’s YOU who didn’t want Michael Jackson to be black, not him.” Because that’s what it is, really.

    Projecting their own raw, internal issues onto another innocent human being and blaming him for them is easier than changing themselves. So that’s what they do. The hallucinatory drug called “the media” is what helps them escape from themselves so they don’t have to confront themselves in the mirror. Just like alcoholics are often in denial and drink to either attempt to fill up something missing inside themselves, or to avoid something inside themselves or both, so does the general public partake of “the media”. From their drug of choice comes the resultant ‘high’ – those salacious illusions and fake stories that enable them to pawn off the things they hate most about themselves or fear most about themselves – onto someone else. Media is the tool – the needle through which the drug flows into their aching veins.

    But inner, personal demons are not slayed by making someone else into a demon and pasting all your faults and fears onto them and sticking pins in to punish. They are only slayed by a stark and honest look into one’s own mirror and making changes to what is seen there – before criticizing or demanding change anywhere else. And that is something most people are no good at. And the media knows it.

    Yes, I like that you refer to the media as a drug. It certainly is. It is a peddler of ignorance, delusion, dangerous avoidance, immoral fantasy, misinformation, non-information, and unhealthy escape from the real problems our society refuses to face. It is an both pusher and drug – all for corporate profit. Michael was unfortunately a sacrificial lamb to this twisted, self-righteous, greedy, addicted, unaware society.

    Even while he tried to guide us through music, art, and film towards wiser, more generous, loving, less abusive and addicted ways, he was crucified with ignorance, hatred and greed – and called an addict and an abuser – and told he “didn’t want to be black” when it was really others who didn’t want that.

    Listen to his haters. They tell you a lot about themselves. . . .

    Like

  50. nan permalink
    August 3, 2011 7:34 pm

    some one had mentioned roger friedman and randy t reporting on mj innocence during the trial…i was on his fb page ,and somebody put up a story from an english tabloid which had randy name in the byline and it was very negative..he gave an explanation for it on his page which he said i could copy…
    J. Randy Taraborrelli
    I did not write this. Just wanted to pop in quickly – I will be back on Facebook later this week. (Missed you guys!) The Daily Mail, in fact many of the Brit papers, have a thing they call an “adaptation” They take your book and rewrite… it to their audience, and always in a crappy way. I don’t hold the serial rights to my books. The publisher sells those rights and if they sell to the DM or one of the other Brit papers like the DM, the paper then gets to rewrite it for their audience. I hate it. I have fought it for years. I think it’s awful and wrong that they can attach my name to something I did not write. It has caused a million problems in my life not just with MJ but with Elizabeth Taylor, the Kennedys, Marilyn and all of my books. I can not expect the public to understand because it’s so ridiculous, therefore people get real pissed off at me. But it is what it is. Bottom line – please read my books. I write those. Every word. Don’t read these crappy “adaptations” of my books. I don’t write them. They take what I actually wrote and twist it. It sucks. Thank you, friends.See More
    Monday at 9:31am · LikeUnlike · 10 people

    then when i asked if i caould share what he said his reply was..

    J. Randy Taraborrelli Yes you can Nan. Tell the fans to rely on the book. If they have a problem with the book, that’s legitimate. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I stand behind exactly what’s in the book. I don’t stand behind any serialization or adaptation of the book. Thanks.
    43 minutes ago · Like

    i dont agree with everything in his book at all , but he is reachable and will discuss things..he has said he regretted how he phrased some things in his book.i dont know if you can always correct what was already put out in print ,but if we can atleast get him to consider other viewpoints, i thinkhe would be more likely to correct some things when interviewed on tv..although on tv they edit things the way they want also..

    at any rate i just thought i would put this up as this is his explanation for what is said under his name in tabloids..

    Like

  51. anniedomino permalink
    August 3, 2011 9:53 am

    Then you get those who hate him because in their warped minds they see a reflection of their own worst self in him. These are the self-hating black people who think that Michael was the same as they, or the latent pedos who fantasize about what they would do if they had a pretty 13 year old in their beds and assign the same fantasy to Michael.

    Wow. I never expected this comment to cause such anger. I think some of you misunderstand me. I am not really exposed to this term in my neck of the woods. But I have heard a few people – including AA’s – sling it at Mike. What I meant was very simple. If you call Michael that,and you are Black, you are projecting your own motivations and inner feelings onto him. I was not saying in any way that he was self-hating – but that the people who called him that are. That could apply to White people as well. If White’s call him a self-hating Black man, they are also projecting their own feelings about race onto him.

    I apologise to anyone I offended. But I do think some of you just went off half-cocked without really thinking about what I said. ANd what I was saying is very simple, and supported by modern psychology. When you direct hatred outward, you are really dealing with self-hatred.

    Like

  52. lcpledwards permalink
    August 3, 2011 6:50 am

    Whoa! This conversation has really taken a life of it’s own! If I wasn’t at work all day, I would have commented on it earlier today. Here are my 2 cents:

    1. Everyone who has commented on this topic of racism has made valid points. Everyone. There are too many for me to name here, and I want to keep this comment short because I have more MJ research that I need to finish up.🙂

    2. As an African-American male, I can say that, in general, the black community was very fair to MJ, even though we were often critical of his appearance, and very critical of his decisions. (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say “How could he be stupid enough to get accused a second time?”, not out of malice, but out of disappointment.) Much of the disdain for his appearance was due to the media brainwashing us into thinking that MJ “didn’t want to be black”, and had “erased all of his black features”. This article from January 2004 perfectly illustrates it. The writer, a U.K. writer named Gary Younge, wrote a lengthy piece of garbage that was quickly refuted by the Floacist, and this is a perfect example of what we’re talking about. The ironic thing about this is that Younge is black! Here is his photo and profile: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/garyyounge?INTCMP=SRCH I’m truly disappointed in Younge, strictly because he’s black, as I hold him to a higher standard. Here is the Floacist’s rebuttal: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/re-gary-younge-is-michael-jackson-turning-black-again/

    3. While we always bash the media for their treatment of MJ, and rightfully so, but I I think that we oftentimes forget to give credit to the Black media outlets that ALWAYS treated him fairly, even when the black community as a whole didn’t always. (That should be expected, as no community of people is 100% monolithic in its views.) Vibe, The Source, XXL, Ebony, Essence, JET, Black Entertainment Television, TV One, Sister 2 Sister, and other black media outlets NEVER, EVER, ran tabloid headlines, or referred to him by the derogatory pseudonym that he hated. Most importantly, they resisted the temptation to earn big money by slandering MJ during the trial because they knew that their target demographic – the Black community – wouldn’t tolerate it. That sentiment is echoed in this amazing article from May 2005 called “Michael Jackson is Paying For OJ Simpson’s Acquittal”. http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/michael-jackson-may-be-paying-for-ojs-acquittal/

    4. I was just beginning to research a future project that I was going to call “Michael Jackson’s Relationship With Hip-Hop Culture“, which will show the amount of love and respect that he had for hip-hop, and vice versa. He has more in common with most rappers than you think! LOL! My main motivation for writing this is to disprove once and for all the nonsense of him “turing his back on black people”. I was going to post it on Seven’s blog in June 2012, since June is Black Music Month, but based on the passion and emotions generated by this topic, I may have to not only push it up, but post it here as well! (I didn’t want to post it here originally because this is a vindication blog, and that post will have nothing to do with the allegations, except to show the black community’s support for him during that dark time.) When people think of black culture nowadays, usually hip hop and rap music are the first images that come to mind – for better or for worse.😦 By showing MJ’s love and admiration for hip hop, and for black music in general, debunk the stereotype that was perputuated by the media, and further promoted by ignorant black comedians like Katt Williams, who I’m sure most of you have seen his MJ standup routine on youtube.

    5. In this article that I did last year refuting Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin, if you watch the video of the Sean Hannity show, towards the end you’ll see Hostin proclaiming MJ to be a “self-hating” black man, and this is how the media was successful in attempting to detach MJ from the black community. By the way, Hoston is half-black, half-Puerto Rican, which makes her one of the few minorities in media to slander MJ. Hey, there’s exceptions to every rule, right? LOL! https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/refuting-the-legal-analysts/

    That’s all for now……….gotta get back to work! I hope to post my transcript and analysis of Matt Drudge’s 4 radio shows from 2005 where he vehemently defended MJ in the next few days. You’ve heard the clips from the 4 videos I posted, but this will be the ENTIRE show, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised at what you read! By the way, Daphne Barack was briefly mentioned too!

    Like

  53. nan permalink
    August 3, 2011 6:45 am

    i bet quincey jones regrets making those stupid remarks..i really think he was a little bitter because mj moved on..
    as far as people who supported mj during the accusations..this is supposed to be a list of people who supported him..it may already be on this site somewhere ,
    http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/supported-michael-jackson-in-1993-and-2002-2005/

    Like

  54. August 3, 2011 6:30 am

    We had the occasional black idiots from the black community like Kat Williams, Chris Rock who believed in all the garbage. For the most part, the black community did support him. He had supporters of all colors but the black community as a whole knew what was going on.

    Like

  55. lynande51 permalink
    August 3, 2011 5:50 am

    You know I might feel like it was more true that black people stood up for Michael if I didn’t see and remember the interview Quincy Jones gave after his death. He has literally been the one person who’s throat I would love to shove that autopsy report down. He is the one above all others that should apologize to Michael, his kids, his family and his fans. Michael did not deserve that mans opining on any single thing that Michael did or how he felt about it. He was just damn lucky Michael let him be a part of his star thats what I think about him. he makes me want to Scream. There is actually a worse and longer version of his crap on Huffington Post.
    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/quincy-jones-michael-jackson-didnt-want-to-be-black-200927

    Like

  56. August 3, 2011 5:28 am

    @Chris
    Many, many people stood up for MICHAEL IN 2005. I watched BET back to back and everyone from actors to hip hop artist stood up for him. It was the mainstream media that deliberately painted him in a bad light. There were many, but I also agree that many others abandoned him and were being hypothetical when he died- Tom Mesereau admitted to that.

    Like

  57. lynande51 permalink
    August 3, 2011 4:14 am

    I should also say that racism as we know it is not about the color of someones skin. It is in in fact about hatred based on a select few having a feeling of Supremacy over another human. It would not matter to the person that felt Supremacy what color the object of their hatred is. Hate is what they feel and it is not cause by another it is caused by that feeling of supremacy.

    Like

  58. Teva permalink
    August 3, 2011 3:48 am

    @Helena

    “I know that I will probably be thrown stones from both sides but would still like to ask a question – why doesn’t anyone accuse whites of self-hatred or “betraying their race” if they lie in the sun and get tanned, and why does everyone – including colored people – accuse the black race of self-hatred if they want to lighten up their skin? Why should it be regarded as a “betrayal”?- VindicateMJ

    It is regarded as betrayal because beauty is measured by Euro-centric features; therefore, it gives the impression a non-white is trying to move towards a racial ideal away from their own race. Therefore, if a person of Asian heritage has eyelid surgery it is considered not embracing your race, but trying to look like another, also if a black person bleaches their skin it is look upon the same way. I have read many Persians have nose jobs, the likely intention being a European nose IDK? Furthermore, the European ideal of beauty did not naturally evolved over time, but was . . . uh forced upon other races.

    However, though Euro standards are still firmly entrenched it is changing a little mainly due to celebrities. You have white persons getting lip injections to look like Angelina Jolie (ironically who is white). They are also getting Buttocks implants to look like Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, or Kardashians.

    Even within the white race they are still “ideals”. Persons with black hair want blonde hair, and persons with brown eyes wish blue eyes, and there is a a whole industry ready to cater to imperfection. Clairol anyone?

    Like

  59. August 3, 2011 3:38 am

    Re: The term “self-hating Black” Lynande said:

    “The term was coined by the white media to describe a phenomenon that they in fact created. It is a very complex idea ..”

    Yes, it is. And its insidiousness remains present in society. IMO, this is why racism is so successful at being divisive and explosive.

    It pulls on so much projection, unconsciousness and fear, that navigating its murk can be very difficult.

    In order to discern what is going on in the sub-texts media and people use everyday in everyday life, one has to get very clear & be very honest about where one is coming from.

    Like

  60. Lauren permalink
    August 3, 2011 3:34 am

    Yes, I learned that Michael was addressing that in ‘Beat It’ and in ‘Bad’ He brought the gangs into Beat It and offered another way to solve conflict in the inner city…through art,in this case — the dance.

    The inner city, especially youth and minorities, had been painted as lawless and a place very dangerous to be..and in ‘Bad’, again he highlighted the inner city and the pressures and conflicts those young people faced; made them human and not so frightening.

    Goes much deeper than that but Michael sought to change attitudes, beliefs, behavior, power structures, prejudice and racist myths through his lyrics, music and film.

    Still learning.

    Like

  61. August 3, 2011 3:25 am

    @Chris

    Here goes.

    Since I was not and am not a ‘fan’ I can’t speak for what fans were doing or how each individual fan felt during Michael’s life.

    But I have heard, read about, spoken to, and know many who talk of the enormous vitriol they experienced from others when they defended Michael. But many of them also talk of the comfort and lasting relationships they formed inside the fan community, particularly during the most tumultuous periods of Michael’s life.

    Death has a way of clearing the decks, of providing the space necessary for people to reflect on, mourn and appreciate the person who once occupied that vacuum.

    So we saw and see the campaigns for Gardner, MTV., BET, the statues and the tributes — some better than others. Many people ‘came back’ to Michael post 2009, remembering him even as he left earth’s orbit. And some had been there all along.

    Whatever, those that remain committed now, in their own way, are doing what they can. And part of that is shedding the damaging myths that attach to Michael, those that supported him and those that didn’t.

    As for the silent millions? Who knows what personal circumstances they are living with. If they feel Michael, tell their children.about him, play his music and do not believe the lie –they are still part of the positive.

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    August 3, 2011 3:16 am

    The thing is that the term “self hating black” is not in reference to a skin color. It refers to Black American culture. Yes there is a different culture and they are proud of it. The term was coined by the white media to describe a phenomenon that they in fact created. It is a very complex idea and I don’t think anyone really gets it. What it means is this: Black Americans were becoming more powerful and this made the whites in places of power nervous. They turned to the white controlled media to point out to blacks that there were “good” ones and “bad” ones. They did this by repeatedly pointing out to the black community that there were “bad” ones and used things like crime statistics and educational and economic levels as examples to back up their claims. They used what is in essence the good old boy thinking that “they all look alike”. It is oppressive and was meant to be that way to “keep us in our place”. Well everyone knows that the best way to conquer is divide it gives you less to conquer and it worked. Unfortunately a large populace of Black Americans did buy into it to some extent. They went out of their way to avoid the stereotypical Black Culture that was presented by the white media. Having reached that level of success the same media turned it around and called them self hating thus stripping away the pride of accomplishment for having “risen” to higher level. It turned them against each other. It was an attempt at assimilation of the Black American culture to a more acceptable and superior whiteness. It really isn’t about the color of the skin; it is about a presumed superiority. Anyway the media was successful because now we have people that deny that this phenomenon existed when it did for a long time and to deny it denies that it was once again done to us. It is like everyone that denies that what happened to Michael was like a “good old lynchin” because they are afraid to be angry about the fact that lynching’s existed to begin with. The anger should be validated because it is justified. Deborah was right to an extent but the phenomenon of self hating Blacks is far worse than racism it was a type of cultural genocide or at least a very good attempt. And it was not restricted to Black America it covered all what they refer to as “minority” races and was done to gain superiority for a few powerful whites. It is not that they hate themselves as much as the powers that be made them hate or suspicious of one another. When we discuss skin color in conjunction to self hatred it trivializes it.

    Like

  63. August 3, 2011 3:11 am

    @chris

    There are a lot of questions there!

    Like

  64. Chris permalink
    August 3, 2011 2:47 am

    OK I was gunna say nothing but I do have a nack of saying things that no one else will.

    Deborah you know I respect and trust you more than any other in community but I want to expand on your last comment.

    After he died black people took to street etc.
    Well if I can take that further and make it more general from race.

    If MJ died in 05 would anyone of cared? For example:

    Would MTV put vanguard award in his name again…No
    Would Auditorium take down that sign covering his name…No
    Would BET awards been dedicated to MJ….No
    Would he have a statue in Japan…Maybe they love him like crazy over there.
    Would people of even considered for a second to allow Neverland to be a museum or “Graceland”…No

    Now before i forget i agree with what u said about the self hating black BS. It was just hate or ignorance or the other EMBARASSMENT.

    You ask all MJ fans who were fans before trial of 10 years and longer and you ask them..How many people do you know stood up for MJ during trial?

    My answer 2 me and my bro. Know one else. My guess is many will say the same amount.

    If these supporters existed where were they? They hid from being associated with him, didn’t want to be outcasted by the popular opinion. IMO the ones who claim to have always been fans and saw him as a icon but held their tongue because they wanted to be accepted are the worst of all.

    And there are plenty of them out there.

    Like

  65. August 3, 2011 2:04 am

    “MJ said the same thing about the tanning in that Oprah interview. How people sit out in the sun all day and no one says anything about that. Btw, that royalties statement cracked me up when I read it earlier lol”

    Gigi, of course it wasn’t my idea – I remember Michael talking about it to Oprah and it was him who sent me thinking along these lines. The idea was so simple but it surprised me that I had never thought about it myself – why indeed are the standards so double here? Why are whites provided with tons of creams for tanning while if a black has a whitening cream everyone starts screaming as if it is a crime?

    Not that it concerned Michael because his situation was different but the idea nevertheless struck me very hard then. It showed to me that all of us are in the grip of stereotypes and we sometimes don’t even realize it.

    But now I am surprised to hear that blacks are in the grip of these stereotypes too – only for them this lightening cream acquires the meaning of a betrayal of their race. Whites have by the way gone through similar transformations – two centuries ago females whitened their skin with powder not to look like peasant girls who had to work in the fields, so a whiter color of skin was a social privilege then which made everyone (even men) to puff their skin into porcelain white not to look like “ordinary people”.

    It took two centuries to make a complete U-turn in this respect and now we regard tan as a sign of good health, prosperity and attractive looks. I hope that our mentality will undergo a similar transformation as regards colored people and their skin – but in a much shorter period this time.

    And it was Michael who broke the ice here – so all royalties for the idea should go to him of course!

    Like

  66. Lauren permalink
    August 3, 2011 1:52 am

    Armond White says Michael spoke ‘Truth to Power’ and the power-ful responded with vicious accusations creating an almost alternate universe that many accepted as truth.

    It seems to be ingrained in the populace to a great extent and so the reality of Michael is blocked and resisted.

    Even those who knew him, talk about him from personal experience….their words seems to bounce off, replaced in someone’s mind immediately with that darn alternate reality.

    Truth matters not, it seems. I see this time as the groundwork to change that meme….books, seminars, music and lyric analysis, studies of the global cultural impact of Michael’s work, will bring enlightenment to those young enough not to be contaminated with issues that have nothing to do with the art. (IMO)

    Like

  67. August 3, 2011 1:24 am

    “It’s about privilege. Society puts everyone in boxes, but places people of color in smaller more confined boxes, so that if we step outside of those limited ideas of who we are, then we’re labeled “not really black” or “trying to be white”. As if to say, if you’re black you can only be “this”, if you are that, then you’re not “black”.”

    Kate, I agree with what Lauren said. Michael refused to be pigeonholed and limited, and reached the heights which no other person in the world had. He is a great example for all of us and taught each race a lesson – to each its own.

    Like

  68. August 3, 2011 1:21 am

    I think the people that accuse and try to label MJ has a “self-hating black” are really people who are just hating on MJ period. I’ve never personally known of a black person who said they hated being black. I’m black myself so from my experience most of the time some black folks will try to say that MJ wanted to look “white” or “he wanted to look like that” (meaning his skin). That is coming from ignorance and/or choosing not to acknowledge MJ had vitiligo and lupus. Prime example, my dad said the same to me one day regarding MJ’s skin he said “i mean he wanted to change his skin” I respectfully corrected my dad with the quickness and said no MJ had a skin disease, he suffered from vitiligo. Now my dad is not a “self-hating” black and he loves MJ also. I think over the years it’s those in the media platform who wanted the public to think that the black community turned their backs on MJ cause of his skin. That’s simply not true at all. Remember that radio interview MJ did w/ Steve Harvey. Steve told MJ on the air “you mean a lot to the black community and don’t let no one tell you haven’t meant a lot to the black community” something along those lines. MJ then stated again how proud he was to black american, proud of his race, honored to be black etc.

    MJ knew who he was, he knew he was a black man and saw himself as such. Its other folks that have an issue over something that MJ had no control over. His vitiligo was something he had, he didn’t shrink and hide from the public or whatever. Plain and simple he dealt with what God gave him and he handled it beautifully.

    Helena, MJ said the same thing about the tanning in that Oprah interview. How people sit out in the sun all day and no one says anything about that. Btw, that royalties statement cracked me up when I read it earlier lol

    Like

  69. August 3, 2011 12:59 am

    ” Young, Black and Proud”

    Deborah, I risk being thrown stones at but it seems to me that this kind of an attitude is all right only as an intermediate step but is absolutely no good as the final goal.

    For the moment it may be correct and necessary in order to regain some balance and get even with the past, but if you come to think of it, it sounds no better than Young, White and Proud. What I mean is that Pride or rather Dignity should not spring from the color of skin at all – any color of skin – because color of skin alone cannot be reason for pride (though at the moment it is not that way).

    Color of skin is not something which a person has individually accomplished so being proud of it is as absurd as for a dirty half-illiterate white drunkard being proud of himself in the surrounding of impeccable and sober university-educated blacks (or vice versa).

    I think that only individual accomplishments can be a true reason for pride or rather, a feeling of satisfaction. And though there is still a long way to go before reaching that point it seems that it would be better if young colored people already now set a target for themselves to be proud of their higher grades in learning, the amount of books read, knowledge received, etc. rather than the color of their skin. Especially if in the future its color will probably depend on cosmetic procedures only.

    Like

  70. August 3, 2011 12:54 am

    @Chris

    Okay. But that’s still not the same as stating categorically that person was a ‘self-hating Black.’ I think it simply means that person didn’t like what he felt was a ‘choice’ by Michael to change his colour. He was wrong.

    But the projection of ‘self-denial’ did not originate with this man [and his like.] It has been applied and projected onto him by others.

    Many whites also thought Michael had a choice in the matter about his skin colour. Are they ‘self-hating’ too?

    Like

  71. Chris permalink
    August 3, 2011 12:38 am

    LOL I never said it did. I was just pointig out that actually there was AN example.

    He is admitting that part of his reason to stop listening to MJ was cos he and I will stress the HE felt that MJ had abandoned/ashamed of his race.

    That is all.

    Like

  72. Lauren permalink
    August 2, 2011 11:42 pm

    Yes, agree about boxes with boundaries and limits.

    Michael pushed hard against those boundaries of sexuality, gender, race, national identity…a black man with a white face that made lots of folks very uncomfortable. He refused to be pigeonholed and limited… some see the beauty of that and some see weird/strange.

    Like

  73. August 2, 2011 11:42 pm

    Again, Chris, this one example is not sufficient to claim that this person was:

    1: A ‘self-hating Black’

    or

    2: Powerful enough to form part of an actual demographic that actively harmed the perception of Michael in mainstream media.

    Like

  74. Chris permalink
    August 2, 2011 11:31 pm

    @ Deborah

    You said something about media platforms and that black people never said such thing about MJ. Well yes in a general sense you are right the majority didn’t.

    However Channel 5 news after MJ died Ian Wright the presenter said. “I was a fan of him back in the 80’s and J5 days but then he started singing quicker i stopped listening to him (this is fine if he didnt like that style of singing however he continues) and ya know he bleached his skin “shaking his head in disagreement as he said it as if he was appalled at MJ for doing it”. Even though we all know it is a blatant lie.
    He didn’t even mention vitiligo.

    He had no excuse not to know better. Not there ever was 1 for anybody.

    Like

  75. August 2, 2011 11:20 pm

    We are each responsible for our words and actions would be my response Lynande. It is probably one of the reasons why I very rarely comment here, having witnessed silently many of the disputes and discussions here. I try to keep emotion out of replies but this time that comment — for better or worse — inspired a strong response.

    Like

  76. kate permalink
    August 2, 2011 11:19 pm

    VMJ said;
    ” … why doesn’t anyone accuse whites of self-hatred or “betraying their race” if they lie in the sun and get tanned, and why does everyone – including colored people – accuse the black race of self-hatred if they want to lighten up their skin? Why should it be regarded as a “betrayal”?

    It’s about privilege. Society puts everyone in boxes, but places people of color in smaller more confined boxes, so that if we step outside of those limited ideas of who we are, then we’re labeled “not really black” or “trying to be white”. As if to say, if you’re black you can only be “this”, if you are that, then you’re not “black”.

    Whites in Western societies are given the privilege to be many things and still be “white”, whereas if a black person were to venture out of their assigned box, they somehow lose their “blackness”

    If you want an idea of what I mean, watch this from :30 to 1:10:

    Like

  77. lynande51 permalink
    August 2, 2011 11:07 pm

    This blog is an emotional place. We do our work for several reasons most of them emotional. Our articles invoke emotional responses and the debate becomes circular. When that happens people become offended because we don’t all share the same life and what may not be offensive to me may be to another. The same is said for my response when I read something that I feel is directed to me. Something that may not have been intended as offensive is and my feelings can then be hurt. Michael said it best when he quoted a Native American Proverb of “Don’t make judgments against me until you have walked two moons in my moccasins”. We cannot all agree on the same thing being offensive, we would all have to be the same.

    Like

  78. August 2, 2011 10:49 pm

    “There is no evidence or basis for imagining that ‘self-hating’ Blacks — itself an overstated projection by the dominant racial demographic in Western culture — took aim at Michael and pronounced him an outcast. One or two, three, four individuals who I, and perhaps others, would dispute can be called such — is not sufficient to make this new claim.”

    Deborah, now I see your point. This “self-hatred” term sounded to me so artificial that I simply could not understand what it was all about – and now its meaning is slowly growing on me. The term must have been invented by some very arrogant people who regard their race as a sort of a privileged club, so they expect that if someone wants to join it they have to pretend they are one of them, right? And even if there are some well-meaning people in this club they will still say – there is no need to pretend, we will accept you the way you are? And those who aspire to join the club also insist that everyone should stay the way they are as otherwise they will be “betraying” their kind, correct?

    Well, since the term is new to me this is probably why I would like to add a new dimension to it. It is not the matter of betraying anyone. People just want to change their appearance and have the right to do so in the same way they have the right to have their hair curled or their skin tanned. I’ve seen some young Japanese people with flaming red hair which is of course not their natural color – so what?

    Changing the color of skin should be regarded as simple and routine a matter as curling or straightening one’s hair and should stop being regarded as a racial issue. Many whites are envious of a naturally tanned skin and go to much extreme to get the right shade. Black people should have absolutely the same right in doing the reverse. If some of them think that lightening up a little will be more becoming to them – let it be. There shouldn’t be any fuss around this issue AT ALL and it should be stated plain and clear at every corner.

    By the way my suggestion about royalties for the idea was a joke only partially. If someone starts this business and makes it successful a little financial help from them would be very much welcome. They could probably give me a job in advertising too.

    Like

  79. kate permalink
    August 2, 2011 10:09 pm

    I think this just proves how powerful repetition is (“If you tell a lie often enough…”) People are used to the association of Michael Jackson and his likeness with “wierdness”, on tv, in magazines, newspapers, and in comedy. His image has been distorted/ manipulated and then slapped with headlines like “wierdo”, “wacko jacko”…this has been happening over and over for 20 years (that’s a long time in the soundbite/short-attention span media). The general public has been used to him being portrayed that way, so even when some are presented with facts, they can’t let go of this maliciously concocted image of him.

    The only way to change people’s minds is to constantly repeat the truth about him in the media. Of course there’s the issue of how to get the media to cover him fairly in the first place, but I see that changing as people are turning away from television as their source of news and towards alternative choices (online news blogs, social media). Although, television is still one of the best ways to get a message to a broad audience. I think campaigns like the one for the Larry Nimmer documentary to air on television is a good step in the right direction.

    Like

  80. August 2, 2011 10:07 pm

    I’ve noticed that this “self-hating issue” often implies that some black people want to be lighter in color because they “don’t want to stay they way they are”. This argument is often thrown in the face of Michael Jackson which is of course done in total disregard of his vitiligo. All of us know that he suffered from a very grave case of it and it wasn’t his fault that he changed his color so dramatically. But this is not the point I would like to make.

    I want to say something totally different here.

    Frankly, I’ve never thought about the problem of tanning or lightening up one’s skin in terms of “hatred” for one’s race. All I knew was that many whites are obsessed with tanning their skin and looking more attractive and there is a whole industry which helps them in their desire to get a little color to their pale skin. But it was only after listening to all this talk about “how awful it is” if colored people want to lighten up their skin that I realized that there is a big distortion of the problem from all participants in the discussion.

    I know that I will probably be thrown stones from both sides but would still like to ask a question – why doesn’t anyone accuse whites of self-hatred or “betraying their race” if they lie in the sun and get tanned, and why does everyone – including colored people – accuse the black race of self-hatred if they want to lighten up their skin? Why should it be regarded as a “betrayal”?

    If the formula is correct it should be universal for all – if whites want to tan in order to become more attractive and there is a whole industry helping them to do it, the same type of industry should exist for black or colored people who want to lighten their skin – again, if some of them feel they will look more attractive this way. It shouldn’t be regarded as a “betrayal” or whatever –no, it should be regarded as a purely cosmetic issue and that is all.

    I hope chemists will invent some lotions for the effective and harmless lightening up of one’s skin and “tanning in the reverse” could even become the idea behind marketing such products. The idea itself seems to me perfect and very much logical to me. Even if at the moment it is only a joke there might come a time when science will be able to offer such products. And I really don’t want to hear all this nonsense talk about “betrayal” from all participants in the discussion – because it simply has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the looks each woman (or man) chooses for herself and his or her idea of being attractive.

    All people want to be attractive and if they need to add some tan to their skin or take away some of it – let them do it.

    P.S. If someone starts a business on the basis of my idea I will appreciate it greatly if they pay me a small royalty for using it and provide for my old age this way.

    Like

  81. August 2, 2011 9:21 pm

    “Then you get those who hate him because in their warped minds they see a reflection of their own worst self in him. These are the self-hating black people who think that Michael was the same as they, or the latent pedos who fantasize about what they would do if they had a pretty 13 year old in their beds and assign the same fantasy to Michael”.

    Annie, though I asked Deborah not to be so harsh on you I need to say that the word “black” in your sentence was absolutely unnecessary. I would agree with your statement if it just said: “These are the self-hating people who think that Michael was the same as they, or the latent pedos”.

    This I am sure would be more correct.

    Like

  82. August 1, 2011 12:36 pm

    Discussing how the media intentionally distorts information to present their own bias… watch this.

    Like

  83. nan permalink
    July 29, 2011 7:29 pm

    Nan, since you are on Diane Dimond’s fb page may I suggest she investigates Mr. Lou Pearlman instead? She has railroaded an innocent person (and never found anything) so it is high time she looked elsewhere – probably she will find something real this time.
    vindicatemj…
    believe me, i am getting there…lol
    last time she brought up mj, people started commenting that the arviso family was a pack of liars,sneddon had a personal vendetta and destroyed his own legacy while trying to take mj down…i think she got the picture , whether she wants to or not…..

    i stay on her page to follow what she is doing so i wont miss an opportunity to comment on whatever program she is going to be on……i intend on staying there until the end of the murray trial in case she starts embellishing things as usual regarding mj..

    Like

  84. July 29, 2011 4:50 pm

    There may be a wave of persecution, witch hunt,and a crop of newly awoken victims when the trial approaches.Not to speak of all those wanna be fathers. It is laughable were it not potentially hurtful to the children. Can you imagine Michael walking the streets of various European cities, grabbing a little boy from his single mother,and returning him in in 2 hours. Thank you very much ma´am.One hopes that the collapse of the Murdoch empire would have some effect. I am certain that most newly discovered allegations can be refuted, but will people read them? The children need some kind of preparation for what is coming.
    Are they not all in therapy? Also some proactive articles will hopefully be written.And can somebody, with the knowledge, do a write-up on Michael´s whereabouts over the years.

    Like

  85. July 29, 2011 3:57 pm

    “i am on dianes fb page and you would be surprised by the support for mj regarding the aaron carter stuff on her own page”

    Nan, since you are on Diane Dimond’s fb page may I suggest she investigates Mr. Lou Pearlman instead? She has railroaded an innocent person (and never found anything) so it is high time she looked elsewhere – probably she will find something real this time.

    Like

  86. July 29, 2011 3:09 pm

    “And I think people weren’t even aware of what they were doing. How primal their attitude and reactions toward him were.”

    Morinen, I am constantly amazed by it.

    “I found an interesting quote there from some journalist who was present at the 2005 trial: “As he passes me (I’m seated on the aisle, so he’s literally 6 inches away)… I look, for the first time, directly into that famous, refashioned face. From this close, I was sure I’d see jagged, splotchy grafts that didn’t quite take. Perhaps some sort of concealed titanium support structure. But it turns out his face skin still looks reasonably coherent and unified. Disappointing.”
    This wasn’t from an enemy, or someone who had vendetta and a purpose to offend and humiliate Michael. No, this was from a guy who saw him for the first time in his life.”

    I think that it is a typical reaction of everyone who is comparing what was said about Michael with the person he really was. The contrast is so dramatic that for the brainwashed public it is even “disappointing” to find out that he was a normal human being. This is their first step to waking up to reality – “If he was a human being after all then he should have been feeling something when we were stoning him? And if it really hurt then he probably did have reason to take painkillers at a certain moment in his life? OMG, and it was was me too who drove him to that?”

    You understand that the example with painkillers is an example only. There were no narcotic drugs found in Michael’s system according to the autopsy report and it means that he managed to beat his drug-addiction. And the fact that he suffered from an awful case of insomnia in the later years of his life – well… for an answer to that we should again address those who kept lynching him until his dying day.

    Like

  87. July 29, 2011 1:49 pm

    “You do not rail alone. I hear you. And I agree.”

    Deborah and all readers who agree with me – thank you very much indeed. Let us spare no effort in explaining to others that by allowing further harassment of Michael’s kids the public as a whole is quickly losing its features which allow humans to be called human at all.

    Like

  88. July 29, 2011 1:44 pm

    “The media has control over so many people and there are very few of them with the moral fibre to speak and broadcast the truth. They are the abusers to both Michael and his children.”

    Julis, it will probably take a long time before the media changes. Their primary concern is making money and while speculation about Michael Jackson brings money they will probably keep to their ways. But everything in this life has a limit and this is is a moment when the general public should say to them – by bringing Michael’s kids into their game THEY ARE GOING TOO FAR.

    This should be said by each and everybody of us, so that the media realizes that they have crossed a certain limit and entered a terrain where more insults will simply not be accepted by the public.

    Like

  89. July 29, 2011 1:29 pm

    “It hurts even more when it is directed to Michael’s kids. Those children need a normal life, they need time to grief and start living again – without their father. That’s what I call abuse.”

    Karmen, yes, this is very much abuse. And no matter what some people think about Michael they should stop going after his kids. I appeal to all those who still have a grain of humanity left in them to interfere with all those who abuse these kids verbally – be it a Twitter account or a comment on a newspaper article. Check these people immediately and bring them to their senses by telling them that such things are simply not done. NOT DONE, and that’s it.

    Like

  90. nan permalink
    July 28, 2011 11:07 pm

    i was watching tmz live the other day and they were saying that people didnt have a lot of sympathy for amy winehouse..:((..they then said that the moment mj died…everything changed ..all the accusations and speculation fell to the wayside and people felt terrible..this , coming from harvey levin..of all people…
    well i am going to write to him because i pretty much disagree with his statement..i am not good with computers but i got on one after he died to complain about the way they were covering his death and his children..i remember matt lauer showing the secret rooms etc….somebody asking ryan white mom if she was afraid to leave her son with mj…it was appalling …i was livid.and i havent stopped since..
    if the perception of mj has changed at all it is because what i believe to have been the silent majority, spoke up on his behalf….we have a ways to go, but compared to where we started..progress is being made…..

    you are still going to get the nancy grace and diane dimonds of the world..heck i am on dianes fb page and you would be surprised by the support for mj regarding the aaron carter stuff on her own page..
    we just have to be diligent in calling the media out on this stuff and shame them into treating him and his kids like human beings..

    Like

  91. July 28, 2011 9:53 pm

    Great words! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and i 100 % agree with you! Because of Michael i NEVER believe ANYTHING of what’s being said in gossip magazines and tabloids. When im at my hairdresser and start going through the bunch of magazines i almost feel sick! My mom often say “Oh did you hear about..” etc and i always reply with “you know that person..” No wonder why so many celebs crash down and young children as well who grows up in the spotlight. And when they do so many are judgementful but what they’re not realizing is that when we buy the shit and help spreading the (false) words we also dig the whole, for these poor public people, a bit deeper.. It makes me so sad when people don’t get this! And im so sad that Michael is still brutually treated even when he’s gone.. Just a week ago A LOT of people were murdered in Norway, now THAT’S a horrible man, not Michael. Im so glad we don’t have talk shows like the one you write about here in Sweden. If that day come i will protest in every possible way i can!

    Michael: Your fans will have your back forever!

    Like

  92. July 28, 2011 9:45 pm

    In April this spring Dr. Murray with both hands over his heart and eyes half closed,obviously deeply moved exclaims;”Thats ,my children,I love them!” Maybe he will join the effort of not tarnishing their dead fathers image. As usual he was lucky to be caught on film in this moment.Too bad it´s too late to be more careful about their fathers life.And leaving the children orphaned.

    Like

  93. lynande51 permalink
    July 28, 2011 8:45 pm

    Helena your post is a pure reflection of my thoughts and feellings regarding the media and it’s influence on society. They have known for hundreds of years that the masses depend on the news gatherers to report to them accurately. Unfortunately for Michael it was the 1993 case that changed history when mainstream media had to interview Diane Dimond for her “information”. Since that moment the tabs ruled and common sense, like Elvis, has left the building. The people that read the news now have no way of knowing if what they are being fed is truthful or accurate and readily allow the talking head to supply their opinion. It is like a mass laziness. People in general have gotten too lazy to think for themselves and allow others to do it for them.
    There are many examples of this.For entertainement we are now reduced to watching people in their homes on daily basis. It started with something called Real World and has progressed to delightful little programs that Include: Real Housewives of just about every county in every state of the US. These women are about as far from a Real Housewife as Neptune is to Earth. This of course gives Americans a chance to commiserate about someone elses sordid life and is a very educational example of why the divorce rate in the US is 52%. Who would want to be married to these women? Another example is a show called Bridezillas which should tell you everything you need to know about it. Another prime example of the divorce rate. A word to the wise to the young men in their lives- Just Say No! Get out of it and run as fast as you can.
    They call this entertainment. I for one have not watched a news program or a regular channel in about 5 years and this is the reason.
    Michael Jackson’s name sold. It was worth money to anyone to put a headline on their rag or start their newscast with his name as a headline. People tuned in and bought the paper. He was a guaranteed sale for them. I think since it was established that his name and his image were as important in making money as his music was that all media should have to request use of it from the Estate before they use it for their gain.

    Like

  94. Didi permalink
    July 28, 2011 8:19 pm

    Beautifully said – thank you ♥
    I am hoping with all the News Corporation disgrace coming to light recently that people will now start to question the media AND themselves before making judgement on human lives.

    I’m afraid this world just wasn’t ready for Michael, he was judged by society’s morals, not as the pure soul he was.
    Michael always thought he was put on this earth for a reason – he had a mission. Well that’s how I feel now. My mission is to educate people about Michael.
    I have succeeded with the 2 people I have spoken to who believed all the tabloid crap, one actually thanked me for explaining things.
    He said we were his soldiers of love and that is so true, but we must remember to go about it in the right way, with integrity and respect – just as Michael would want us to do.

    Like

  95. July 28, 2011 1:54 pm

    MJ had to face the consequences of a cultural problem. People who believe the media & people who think they have the right to discuss other people (whom they never met by the way) on TV are products of subculture.

    Like

  96. Suzy permalink
    July 28, 2011 1:37 pm

    Fantastic post, Helena!

    I agree with every word of it!

    Like

  97. July 28, 2011 12:01 pm

    THANK YOU! I absolutely agree with every single word you have written. Brilliant!

    Like

  98. July 28, 2011 11:13 am

    This. Every word of it.

    I was thinking about the same thing the other day. What astonishes me most, is that at some point (and I think it was pretty early in his career), people became somehow convinced that they really _new better_. They new better who he slept (or not slept) with, how many surgeries he had, whether he was a parent, etc. etc. And some even had the impudence to throw their opinions into his face, thus accusing him of mental deficiency at best and of outright lies at worst (Like that episode with Bashir who was trying to find out why Michael did all those many surgeries – not even allowing a thought that Michael was telling the truth! He was like, “Come on, you can’t fool me. I know better.”)

    Michael’s own words had absolutely zero credibility in public eyes. It’s as if he was perceived as a public property, a toy, created solely to entertain them, and his words served the same purpose. “He opens his mouth to make the show go on”. He wasn’t allowed to defend himself – not legally, but in people’s minds. You are right, it was a show. His life, after all, was the greatest show on earth.

    And I think people weren’t even aware of what they were doing. How primal their attitude and reactions toward him were. I’m reading this new book, “M Poetica: Michael Jackson’s Art of Connection and Defiance” which also touches the subject, and I found an interesting quote there from some journalist who was present at the 2005 trial:

    “As he passes me (I’m seated on the aisle, so he’s literally 6 inches away)… I look, for the first time, directly into that famous, refashioned face. From this close, I was sure I’d see jagged, splotchy grafts that didn’t quite take. Perhaps some sort of concealed titanium support structure. But it turns out his face skin still looks reasonably coherent and unified. Disappointing.”

    This wasn’t from an enemy, or someone who had vendetta and a purpose to offend and humiliate Michael. No, this was from a guy who saw him for the first time in his life. Did he even understand what he said? How vulgar and utterly inhuman that sounded? Well, if he did, he probably wouldn’t have printed it for everyone to see, right? No, his instinct was simple: he wanted a show, and he didn’t get one,

    This is scary. Living in a society capable of this towards one of their kind is scary.

    Like

  99. Silvily permalink
    July 28, 2011 8:54 am

    They spent years literally and figuratively lynching Michael, just as in some of the worst years of our American history. Totally shameful.

    Like

  100. Silvily permalink
    July 28, 2011 8:49 am

    AMEN!

    Like

  101. July 28, 2011 7:55 am

    Beatifullly said. Heartbreakingly beautiful, but beautiful.

    Like

  102. July 28, 2011 3:42 am

    You have managed to express all the anger, frustration and disbelief that I feel on a daily basis when it comes to how so many treat Michael. He became less than human, a caricature with no relation to the real person and we witness the consequences of that in every instance you so passionately stated.
    I hear you, too. Thank you.

    Like

  103. Julis permalink
    July 28, 2011 2:38 am

    Just today I was reading a political blog and the article was about a Democratic congressman who resign due to being accused of sexual assault by a young woman. The writer of the blog said that he is of the mindset that people are innocent until proven guilty. One of the commentors went on a rant naming some of the people who she thinks should not have been found not guilty and decided to include Michael’s name in her list, while proceeding to add that she would not let her kids stay over with him.
    We, the people who are demanding justice for Michael have a lot of work to do. I was so upset, I could not respond to this commentor.
    The media has control over so many people and there are very few of them with the moral fibre to speak and broadcast the truth. They are the abusers to both Michael and his children. Those kids knew love and were loved and I cannot wait until they are old enough to chose who to give an interview to (definately not Oprah), and show the world what a wonderful father they had. Or maybe they should just say screw you to all of them and get on with their lives. I know I probably would😦

    Like

  104. July 28, 2011 2:25 am

    You do not rail alone. I hear you. And I agree.

    Like

  105. July 28, 2011 2:05 am

    I couldn’t agree more with what you say. It’s the same old story, people blaming the press, but who’s feeding them? Yes, THEY are feeding those crazy stories, those lies, if people didn’t buy the magazines, watch their shows on TV or click on their websites, they would be gone. It’s as simple as that.

    But no matter how many times you say it, they will go on, like parasites looking for some dirt to eat. It hurts even more when it is directed to Michael’s kids. Those children need a normal life, they need time to grief and start living again – without their father. As if that wasn’t enough, they have to deal with paparazzi and “fans” who love sharing their pictures everywhere on the Internet.

    That’s what I call abuse.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. The Show Must Go On? | MJJ-777

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: