Haters’ real agenda and new strategy against Michael Jackson’s fans

Updated March 17, 2012

Guys, you remember that it was quite by chance that we got familiar with the updates on the haters’ site which claims that it provides its readers with true information about Michael Jackson.

It was after reading their “Home” section that I realized that in addition to their total misinformation about Michael, haters have also now developed a new strategy against Michael’s fans.

This was the text of their home page before I wrote this post

1. THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST US

Here is their full text for your independent study:

There are plenty of websites out there that want to continue Michael Jackson’s PR team’s work even after he has died. I have to admit, that MJ’s PR teams did great work, and there are a substantial number of people who really, truly believe that everything the PR teams said and disseminated about MJ was true. I can’t criticise people like that, in all honesty they probably are great fans of MJ’s music and probably aren’t interested in anything else.

Then again, there are websites out there with a far more sinister agenda. They want to make MJ out to be something he isn’t. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would never compromise myself by accepting that it’s OK, in our society, for a grown man to sleep with children in the way Michael Jackson did. I don’t care who they are! There are no special exemptions, even if you missed out on a childhood, you are famous, or even the man insists repeatedly that it is “innocent”. No way!

Yet, sadly, there are people who do.

In fact, there are entire websites set up to take each of Michael Jackson’s misdeeds and make an excuse for each and every one! From his collection of child erotica, to his sleepovers with boys, to his payments to boys to make accusations go away, his huge collection of porn kept where his young guests had access to it, even his heavy drug use, to his wooing of parents of his “special friends”, there are excuses for each and every one.

The obvious logic is – you wouldn’t need a vindication website if MJ did anything wrong. Any accusations would be laughed off with an “It’s ridiculous that Mike would ever do anything like that” and be forgotten. That can’t be the case, however. The people running those websites know that MJ’s behaviour looks bad to the average person. It can’t be laughed off. It needs to be explained, excused, normalised, justified. They fail. It is not normal to have a  succession of young boy friends. It is not normal to have booze, porn and drugs at a supposedly child friendly place like Neverland. It is not normal for a grown man to sleep with boys when he also collects books like MJ had. In short, these websites are defending the indefensible.

It’s time rational fans stood up and said, “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”. If fans can be honest with themselves and others, MJ’s musical legacy will endure, if they can’t then his legacy will die out because too many people will be turned off.

Attempts to cover Michael Jackson’s actions with obfuscation will not work.

Want to learn the truth behind alleged “extortion” attempts against Michael Jackson? Or how he fits the profile of a pedophile? Look no further. Use the links at left.

So what is new in the haters’ approach to Michael Jackson except the usual distortion of truth, downright lies and huge ommissions of facts?

Now haters “understand” fans who preserve Michael Jackson’s legacy – but while doing so they also support (and even encourage) the fans’ division from Michael’s advocates who are proving the man’s innocence. The above text makes it clear that their main target is this particular site.

They now agree that Michael was a great entertainer and welcome those who are “not interested in anything else” except Michael Jackson’s musical legacy. However when they see Michael’s advocates who prove that he never molested anyone they suggest that we have a “sinister agenda”. The noble reason cited is that finding Michael’s innocent will allegedly promote the concept of “grown-up men sleeping with children in the way Michael did”.

The crucial point around which their whole story is revolving is the issue of “sleep” which is gravely distorted and blown out of every proportion.  But if the building is founded on a crooked foundation the whole structure of it will be crooked too.

Everyone knows that Michael did talk of readily sharing his bedroom with others – but what he never talked of (or meant) was taking anyone into his bed to “cuddle up with” there.

Michael wasn’t very articulate when he tried to explain himself on the “sleep” subject (and this goes for other subjects as well), but with the help of people like Frank Cascio, Macaulay Culkin, Kit Culkin, JC Agajanian and even Corey Feldman who were participants in the process we have found out that Michael spoke of ordinary slumber parties in which both children and parents took part.

He gave his bed to others, often slept on the floor or some couch or even on a different storey, and the worst thing which ever happened in that bedroom was letting children fall asleep on his bed while watching TV or playing games.

Even if a child did crawl into Michael’s bed as Brett Barnes did, this child would later testify that Michael was always at the far end from him and would never – God forbid – touch him. Considering that this was most probably taking place in the presence of other people in the same bedroom, all this testimony amounts to is just another instance of those slumber parties again.

However the issue of having children in the same room is a sensitive subject and over this point Michael’s advocates are not at one.  All of us have our own reservations about it, but the central fact which embraces us is that despite our own differences of opinion on those slumber parties, all of us know that Michael was nevertheless innocent of the horrendous crimes he was suspected of.

His innocence is an established fact because Michael’s advocates have made double effort to look into the factual side of things. It may surprise Michael’s haters but the reason for this double scrutiny was that we were also apprehensive of his lifestyle, asked the same questions and therefore made a thorough, detailed and no-nonsense research into every instance of every allegation ever made.

The research showed that each time we had to step on a new minefield to check up those allegations, not knowing what facts would be undisclosed, it turned out to our big relief that Michael was completely innocent again  – independent of the “sleep” issue and the opinion each of us had about him sharing his bedroom with children and other people.

How and why this happened I don’t know. I mean I don’t know why he had a full chance to molest children but nevertheless never did it – probably because he was made of some other stuff than those who think dirty of him? But on the other hand will these people take advantage of a similar situation and molest someone else’s children if they had a chance to sleep beside them in a youth camp or when going on a hike?

No, they definitely won’t? So it means that most people are also made of the same kind of stuff as Michael was and they know first-hand that a totally innocent scenario is also possible?

And even if they were extremely popular with some children and they besieged them with their attention and imposed themselves on the adults in the same way they forced themselves on Michael, these people would still never overstep the line? Simply because the idea would never even enter our mind? And if someone suggested it we would vomit with repulsion at the mere thought of it?

• So does it mean that under certain circumstances we can envisage slumber parties or the behavior similar to Michael’s even for ourselves? Yes, it does.

• Does our agreement with the possibility that a slumber party may be a totally innocent event imply that we recommend such parties to the general public? No, it doesn’t.

• What shall we say if someone claims that since we had a slumber party with some children this automatically turns us into pedophiles? The answer depends on the temper of the one who gives the answer – as to me I will probably drive these people down the stairs in reply to their statements.

We will react so  because we know for sure – either from our own first-hand experience or general feelings about the subject – that it is possible to have those slumber parties and still remain innocent and do no harm, don’t we? Yes, we do.

And this is the crucial part of it all.

No matter whether we like or dislike Michael’s lifestyle, he still didn’t commit a single misdeed towards a child as our own independent research proved it. The core point is that no matter what we think of him he didn’t do it.

Everyone thought bad of him because he had every opportunity to do so, but he nevertheless didn’t do it and this “baffling” fact is what is laying the basis for the attitude of Michael’s advocates towards the man.

Let us leave the job of explaining Michael’s lifestyle to those who knew him personally – the Cascios, Culkins or Mr. Agajanian, for example – while we can simply satisfy ourselves with the conclusion that Michael never committed any crimes against children and that’s it.

By the way, since they will be doing the explanation, let them also explain ( if they can, of course) some other things which we would not do either –  for example, why Michael allowed the people he barely knew to freely rake through his personal things in the closet, or why he let people live at his expense in his house for as long as they liked even when he was away from it?

Or why he paid for the burial of penniless singers when they died in obscurity or why he insisted on going to a Jacuzzi with a boy ill with AIDS when all others shunned the boy like the plague?

Or why he made friends with a severely burnt child and turned him into a regular visitor to his home though his face should have been a terrible sight for his then wife and members of the household?  (By the way the list of Michael’s so-called “dangerous liaisons” in the haters’ site should be supplemented with Ryan White, the boy ill with AIDS and Dave Dave, the burn victim.  I didn’t notice their names among the “liaisons”, which is a deplorable ommision – some chance people are in the list while the key players are not).

I’ve mentioned all these things in Michael’s behavior as they are also totally unusual for average people and if we are able to understand Michael’s ways this will surely bring us closer to understanding the unique phenomenon Michael Jackson was.

Now Michael’s haters call for “rational” fans to stand up and say: “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”.

Okay, I will agree to a similar statement but only in my wording if I may – Michael Jackson indeed entertained us greatly and his behavior was really unusual. But though his habits were different from ours there was still nothing criminal about them. His lifestyle was unique as he was a unique human being, placed into unique circumstances, who faced unique challenges and made unique life achievements – so repeating his style unless we are the same unique people is totally artificial, unnecessary, impossible and should not be even tried.

And asserting Michael’s innocence is absolutely not the same as promoting his lifestyle as a norm in present-day society.

It would probably be only for the better if all of us were like Michael Jackson as human beings, but the sad fact is that we are far from being anything like him. As a human entity we are not yet ready for his level of childlike innocence,  playfulness and strict inner law prohibiting any wrongdoing – so let’s forget the idea of “copying” his lifestyle, at least for the present moment.

Michael’s slumber parties may look strange, unusual and probably shocking to some of us, but he was nevertheless innocent despite all our attempts at their dirty interpretation. And since he was innocent, it means that he didn’t deserve the murderous harassment by the public, media and prosecution to which he was subjected for more than 20 years during his life and after it.

Hence the need to explain to the world the situation we all found ourselves in – we killed an innocent man whose only guilt was essentially in the fact that WE thought bad of him.

At the very least it was an extreme over-reaction on the part of the public, however if we are honest with each other we’ll have to admit that it was our cruelty, ignorance, hypocrisy and our own dirty thinking which led to a grave crime committed against a very pure person who could not hurt a fly.

*  *  *

2. OUR AGRUMENTS AGAINST HATERS

But if we disagree with haters’ assertions that  proving Michael’s innocence is a danger to the society, shall we agree to their other statement that it is okay to admire the man for his talent and silently accept or tolerate the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children?

By asking this question I refer to the haters’ idea that they “can’t criticize people who are great fans of Michael’s music but aren’t interested in anything else”.

In contrast to haters, I as an advocate of Michael’s innocence, find myself at great odds with people who say they admire Michael’s music, but are indifferent to how he behaved with children. When I ask myself whether I would ever support Michael Jackson or ever listen to his music if he turned out to be an animal instead of a human being, I say to myself a definite NO.

Never in my life would I support the man if I were doubtful of his innocence. In fact I have already gone through the doubt stage when I didn’t even want to think of Michael Jackson, however this period ended when my eyes finally opened to the facts of a huge set-up,  false accusations and the unjust and horrendous way this innocent man was treated.

So like all normal people whenever I thought of Michael Jackson I looked into two options only – either the man is a villain and his music and talent are non-existent for me, or he is innocent and this opens the road for my admiring his genius at last.

However the compromise variant of admiring the talent but closing my eyes to “everything else” is something which has never, ever entered my mind – because for a normal human being this compromise can never be an option.

I bet that the carefully worded haters’ call to Michael Jackson’s fans to like their idol but be indifferent to “everything else”  did not initially strike you as offensive until you have probably realized just now what is standing behind it.

If this isn’t a stealthy way to make people tolerant to someone’s perverse behavior (or the potential possibility of it) at the pretext of him being a talent, genius, Nobel prize winner, etc, I don’t know what else this attempt might be.

And as such it may be a very roundabout way of using the innocent name of Michael Jackson for making people gradually accept the concept of ped-lia, which is the thing Michael staunchly fought until his dying day and which he himself never had any bearing on.

If you think that the above haters’ idea is totally impossible, abstract and unrealistic to implement to, it shows that  you have not been to some hugely provocative “fan” sites where the idea of “even if he enjoyed himself that way, so what?” is being promoted in full earnest.

By hissing that “he is probably a villain but a very talented one, so it is okay to like him “the way he was” these snakes are actually eroding the natural barrier in every normal human being which is built in there by God or nature for the protection of our children. This barrier says that no matter how talented a person is, if he molests children he is an anti-human who is taking you on the road to hell.

But now we see that someone wants to break this natural barrier by offering a colossal number of Michael’s fans a sweet venom in the cup called “let us throw the man into a bad class, but it will still be okay to love him that way, because it is only his genius that matters”.

Michael’s vindicators prove that he wasn’t that way (however this is found unacceptable by Michael’s haters and is even proclaimed dangerous to the society) – while the same haters will perfectly understand if huge numbers of people admiring Michael will get tolerant to the potential possibility of him being a predator (and this will not be considered dangerous to the society).

So proving the  man’s innocence is dangerous to the society morals, while admiring him without paying attention to whether he did or didn’t commit any wrongdoing to children is not?  

OMG,  why do I have a terrible premonition that eroding the last bastion of  human ethics is what these people are actually aiming at?

I would disbelieve my eyes and doubt my own conclusions if the haters didn’t try to so blatantly make a differentiation betwen Michael’s “ordinary” fans and his advocates, splashing dirt at us and naming our intention to vindicate Michael “a sinister agenda”.

What is a really sinister agenda is making Michael’s fans believe that they can be his true fans and still play with the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children.

These two things are totally incompatible, because a “fan” who admires Michael but thinks ugly thoughts about him is actually his hater,  as he is attributing to him the extreme evil to fighting which Michael devoted his whole life.

Another sinister aspect of the same ideology is that by complying with the idea that “he could possibly do it” and liking the man anyway, the person is showing his inner readiness to accept the possibility of finding any ped-le (which Michael wasn’t!) attractive and even adorable.

This readiness to ‘accept’ is the erosion of the  inner moral law inside each of us which is exactly what Michael’s haters are aiming at.

Our attitude towards Michael is directly the opposite of the dirty compromise suggested to the public by Michael’s haters. Our position is clear, pure and simple – we have done our research and made sure that he was innocent and that is why we support him both as a human being and a great performer. Otherwise we never would.

If we thought him to be a criminal we would never even listen to his music.

By sharing the same clean and pure ideals which Michael Jackon adhered to, we find ourselves in a direct opposition to the pedophile lobby which is still willing to use Michael’s innocent name for crashing the last barriers of people’s morals. Using millions of Michael’s fans will be a very convenient and easy way for them to reach the desired target if they manage to implant their poisonous ideas into the young fans’ minds.

And this is why they find us dangerous — we are standing in the way to their plans.

It was this blog which drew our readers’ attention to the several professors who recommended the book by a convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll “for family reading” .

It was also this blog which found that one of the worst Michael’s haters, Victor Gutierrez had an unaccounted for attendance of a NAMBLA conference in Los Angeles in 1986 about which he bragged himself –  though even FBI agents have a huge difficulty to infiltrate this mafia-like organization, not to mention a foreign journalist like Gutierrez. His first explantion of that visit was that he attended a NAMBLA conference as a journalist which later changed into an ‘agent working undercover’, only no one paid attention to the findings of the “poor Latino” as he himself said. His going from one extreme to another makes us doubt both variants of the story and suggest our own explanation for his visit there – most probably he went there simply as a member….

It is this blog which brought to people’s attention the story of Aaron and Nick Carter and their manager Lou Pearlman who was a huge authority in producing musical bands but was heavily suspected of pedophilia and whom the boys pushed out of their lives with the words “what goes round comes round” (when Lou Pearlman went into prison for another crime).

Of course these guys see us as a menace to their comfortable life because we wrote about Corey Feldman’s outcry to the general public  telling them of the horrible pedophilia crimes widely taking place in Hollywood. Feldman’s friend and co-star was abused as a boy and consequently committed suicide. Feldman was also abused and said so to the police when they were questioning him about Michael Jackson. He even gave them the name of his abuser, only no one paid attention to it as the only person they were after was Michael Jackson, whom Corey did not find any fault with, except that  Michael once warned him against early sex by showing him the book  on veneral diseases.

And it is our blog which found totally revolting information on the way the great sexologist of the 20th century Alfred Kinsey made his scientific research of the “sexuality” of children.  He did it with the help of pedophiles who did things even to infants, God bless their poor souls…

Why do sites like the haters’ one – where people present themselves as fighters for the “common good”  – always talk about Michael Jackson only, though he was the man who was found innocent of all charges?

Why aren’t they handling real crimes which are happening all over the place, only no one is paying attention to them?

I really wonder why the instances of real abuse do not concern those who claim they are defending public morals and why the only person they select is Michael Jackson who is actually a totally innocent man?

Why does it have to be the site of Michael Jackson’s advocates to persistenly show that the lobby of real pedophiles is extremely powerful and their crimes are going on and on, and remain totally unpunishable?

Why indeed does it have to be us to bring up the subject again and again, though all we are doing is the research of Michael Jackson’s innocence and while handling  the respective literature we are totally aghast to find out the scope and openness of real pedophiles’ activities?

Is it because the future of our children is a matter of concern of the followers of Michael Jackson – because he was probably the only one who really stood up for children’s rights?

And doesn’t it show that it is exactly Michael Jackson’s haters who don’t give a damn for the children’s rights, their present and future?

This is the Haters’new page home devised after I asked all the above questions. They DO follow us closely, don’t they?

UPDATED MARCH 17, 2012

After this post was made the Haters’ site changed their home page, arguing with us behind our back.

They say they don’t pull any punches and “call things as they are”. Unfortunately this is not the whole truth, or rather, no truth at all.

The site you see on the left is full of carefully collected lies or at best, unsubstantiated allegations which innumerable con-artists or simple physopaths made about Michael Jackson – either for money, due to their unstable mental condition or following the agenda similar to that of Tom Sneddon’s.

While selecting lies for their purposes these haters meticulously ingore and discriminate the truth about Michael Jackson. And when all their lies are disproved and they have nothing else to say they claim that “nobody will ever know whether Jackson was innocent unless they were there in the room with him”.

Following this logic any of us can also claim that these people, whose minds are so terribly bent on ped-lia, are doing terrible things to children when no one is looking. Reason why we claim that? Because we have never been in one room with these people and do not have a chance to check whether their interaction with children is innocent or not.

Never mind that the children who know them say that they are perfectly normal guys, and that there are no facts testifying to the opposite – we still cannot rule out such a possibility, can we?  Because we haven’t been there!!!

The overwhelming facts of Michael Jackson’s innocence proven during his life and discovered after his death give his supporters the full right to call him an innocent man.  Contrary to that, irresponsible allegations and blatant lies about the same man do not give haters the right to accuse him of horrendous crimes.

This is due to one of the main principles which has been governing human society since time immemorial  – EVERY PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And it is not up to Michael Jackson’s haters now to revoke this fundemental principle of law.

Sometimes suspects are not proven guilty because no one bothers to really look. However this is definitely not the case of Michael Jackson. He was scrutinized from every angle possible for the major part of his life – by two Sheriff’s departments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, two District Attorney Departments in the same counties and two Grand Juries in the period of 1993-94.

His “case” was investigated by Santa Barbara law enforcement bodies for three years in 2003-2005 which ended in a shameful (for the Prosecution) trial as a result of which Michael was fully acquitted on all counts.

He was examined by the Departments of Children and Family Services in both 1993 and 2003 and on top of all that was looked after by the FBI who kept an eye on him for the whole period. They even tried to help the prosecution and get the “first victim” again – only he vehemently refused to testify against Jackson  same as twelve years before that . He said a mysterious phrase that he had “done his part” and added he would sue them if they insisted!

The two Grand Juries in 1993/94  listened t0 400 witnesses including those cited by Michael’s haters in their blog, and the 2005 trial lasted for four months because they listened to all those people all over again.

Tom Sneddon earned the nickname of a “mad dog”  from his own colleagues not just for nothing – it was for his tenacity and zeal in prosecuting people (even innocent ones), so none of us can now pretend that he was “slack” in his work. If Tom Sneddon was unable to prove a single fact of lies against Michael Jackson nobody else could –  this we may be sure of!

But all was in vain. The few allegations they had proved to be unfounded and the only “victim” who testified against Jackson said he was molested after the news of “molestation” hit the world, poor guy…

But if there is nothing to talk of why don’t haters shut up? Why don’t they do something useful instead? If they are so ardent supporters of children’s well-being why don’t you use their blog to fight real pedophiles?

Why do they suggest that we help the Innocence Project? We are helping them already by uncovering numerous cases of real crimes against children, and if the Innocence Project people accept our whole-hearted support we will be only too happy to contribute!

But why doesn’t the Haters’ site do the same? Wouldn’t it be “far more fulfilling” for them to defend children instead of trashing the name of a dead star who was found innocent despite all effort to prove otherwise? He is dead anyway, so why are they so preoccupied with him?

If they ask us why we keep standing up for Michael Jackson I will say the following.

Restoring the good name of an innocent person is a worthy cause which may take years or even decades, and this is why we are doing it for the sake of JUSTICE.

But this has nothing to do with some people’s desire to restore, resume and refresh LIES.

Every new day brings new evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence. The final evidence came from the least expected premises which are totally beyond human control. Being in a half-conscious condition and falling asleep in the hands of death doctor Conrad Murray Michael Jackson revealed the impossible – he told us what he was THINKING OF!

And what was he thinking of? He was dreaming of giving away his hard-earned money to sick children. He was saying it to Murray for the upteenth time that he wanted to build a hospital for them because he took their pain as if it were his own! And he said that it was God who wanted him to do it.

On his death bed Michael Jackson was speaking about GOD!

So now that haters know what Michael Jackson was thinking of, will they shut up please? Life, Heavens or God himself are disproving their lies!