THE BIG DIFFERENCE between Michael Jackson’s supporters and his new ‘allies’
“People don’t defend him because he could sing and dance, people defend him because his art speaks to his character. His art doesn’t lie.” – Nannoris [MJ’s supporter]
This post is another of those unexpected sprouts from the MJ tree of truth we are growing here. The matter was crucial and urgent, so this post was also absolutely indispensable. Its subject was started in the comments to the previous article and was too serious to just let it go.
One of our readers (Terry Dutton) was shocked that Michael Jackson’s haters often say that they love his music though they don’t believe in his innocence and was asking our opinion how such a combination was possible at all.
I perfectly understand Terry’s shock at facing such a contradiction – for Michael’s supporters the above is simply ruled out. For us one thing is incompatible with the other and the discussion of why it is no problem for others resulted in a debate whether it is possible to love someone’s art in spite of thinking him capable of a crime.
The discussion showed the fundamental difference between Michael’s defenders and his accusers, and the conclusion turned out to be exactly the opposite from the one expected by the general public.
For Michael’s supporters his art and genius cannot be separated from his innocence and humanity – his art indeed speaks to his character and doesn’t lie, but if things had been different there wouldn’t be any support for him either.
I myself have zero tolerance to a point of view that Michael Jackson could be glorified if the allegations had been true (they are not!), and this seems to be a big surprise for those who are ready to excuse any alleged vice to a genius and then teach the public to eventually regard it as a “variation” of the norm.
Surprise-surprise, but it seems that Michael’s fans who are sure of his complete innocence are the biggest stumbling block standing in the way of the plans of these people.
‘NO, THANK YOU’ TO THEIR GENEROUS OFFER
Terry Dutton wrote about the readiness of some MJ’s detractors to accept the unacceptable:
I never comment, but today felt compelled to do so. What I want to add is that I am always flabbergasted that some of these so called “haters” and “detractors” always seem to have to mention that they love Michael Jackson’s music .. but… In my mind, how can you love Michael Jackson’s music but believe him to be such a reprehensible human being. Michael Jackson’s humanity, who he was, was reflected in his music, his art…so in my mind, how can that be? You listen to his music, but you must not be able to really hear it so to speak…..
We’ve also noticed this phenomenon and agree that there are indeed lots of MJ’s haters who first relentlessly trash him by calling him the worst possible criminal ever, but end it up with a most surprising conclusion – despite all the mud they have just slung at him they nevertheless generously allow the public to love Michael Jackson for his art.
This seeming contradiction really takes aback, especially if you are unaware of the behind-the-scenes strings the champions of these ideas are pulling.
However for us all this talk is no surprise – it has been going on for rather long now, at least since pedophile Thomas O’Carroll opened the trend in 2009, so we had time enough to realize who these people are and what goals they are pursuing by making so ‘generous’ an offer to Michael’s supporters – the offer we absolutely don’t need and whole-heartedly reject.
I didn’t want to shock Terry with my conclusions made long ago due to a very thorough study – they could seem too stunning for a person who hears about it for the first time, and therefore just suggested that he and other readers put two and two together and make a conclusion by themselves. My answer was:
Terry, this is an extremely important point! For every normal person there are only two options – either we agree that Michael is an innocent man and we accept both him and his music, or if we think differently due to our ignorance (or stupidity) we accept neither him nor his music. There are only two options and I for one progressed from one to the other.
But this is the choice for normal people only.
Now who are the people that suggest the hybrid variant? The variant when they love his music (and suggest that we do the same) in spite of thinking him to be a reprehensible human being?
If you give it a serious thought, you will realize that these people are different. They think it possible to love a man irrespective of his sexual abuse of children. And by promoting this idea they are teaching others to love a child abuser for various reasons – because he is talented, nice, clever, handsome, can’t help himself, was also abused, etc.
Just make one more logical step from this point and you will realize who these people are.
Did you guess?
Though I wasn’t sure that I made myself clear enough the reaction of another reader showed that I did. A certain JamieT wrote to us the following:
Is that true though Helena?
Is Picasso’s vicious philandering and adultery, resulting in two of his women going mad and another two committing suicide, a barrier to the masses enjoying his art?
Do people enjoying The Jungle Book have a second thought about Rudyard Kipling’s vile racism?
Are the hundreds of thousands of people who flock to view Woody Allen’s latest offering, Irrational Man, promoting or condoning his molestation of his stepdaughter?
Did not millions of people enjoy the writings of Oscar Wilde even though he was a homosexual when it was considered against God and Law?
By listening to and enjoying Are You Not Alone, a brilliant song from the HIStory album, does that mean we agree with R Kelly’s abuse of underage girls?
When we attend The Ring do we even give a second thought to Wagner’s despicable anti-semitism?
While reading Madame Bovary does it cross our mind that Flaubert paid to have sex with young boys?
Do not tens of thousands of people every year marvel at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel even though Michaelangelo was a pedophile?
Do we even care that Dickens made the life of his wife and children a total misery whilst we digest Oliver Twist?
This is neither a message in support of the above nor a condemnation of Michael. I am merely pointing out the folly of your logic. The truth is, bad people do make good art and there is no way around it. So even if Michael was found to be guilty of some heinous crime (highly unlikely I know, but just for arguments sake), his brilliance and talent will continue to be celebrated by the world.
It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who hates the sin but loves the sinner is somehow nefarious or immoral, and falls into the trap of dismissing possible allies as haters. That isn’t fair to them or Michael’s talent. You should be more careful how you put things.
The above sounded as an offer of help from an “ally” who is ready to glorify Michael for his brilliance even in case he had been a “sinner”. And while I was only preparing to explain that no offers like that will be accepted here, my co-admin Susannerb already answered JamieT covering each of his points with incredible knowledge and precision:
@JamieT: Oh come on, your examples are ridiculous and absolutely far-fetched and fallacious. Most of your examples are 1. just allegations and/or 2. no crimes.
Picasso may have behaved immoral, but flirting and adultery are no crimes. Mankind is used to it.
Rudyard Kipling was a freemason and had a very conservative world-view, but experts don’t regard him as a racist. T. S. Eliot didn’t see any justification for this allegation.
In Woody Allen’s case most people don’t believe in his guilt, so why should they reject his work? He was never convicted, though the media should have looked at the case more carefully.
Oscar Wilde was a homosexual, so what? This is no crime nowadays, so why shouldn’t people appreciate his writings? And he was not embraced by his contemporaries – he was thrown in jail where his health was ruined, and he died as a poor man at 46.
Kelly was never convicted as well, he was acquitted from his charges, his alleged victim denied abuse.
Richard Wagner is a controversial composer who may have been an anti-Semite, but anti-semitism is widespread on earth and not a crime like many other political and social views. I personally don’t listen to Wagner for exactly that reason (and because I don’t like his ostentatious music)
Flaubert had relationships with women. He apparently told himself about relationships with female and male prostitutes, but there is no proof they were underage.
Charles Dickens may have left his wife and kids, but we know that he always took care of her financially and provided her with an allowance in his will.
Michelangelo a ped-le? I never heard that and there is definitely no such evidence. Even if part of his art is regarded as homo-erotic, this has nothing to do with ped-lia.
In addition, I assume that you mistake Michelangelo Buonoarroti (who created the famous ceiling in the Sistine Chapel) for another Michelangelo: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is the one some people suggest to have been homosexual and have had an interest in young boys (he created for example the painting “Amor Vincit Omnia” ). But this is also rejected by experts because there is no proof of it. And he is a different artist, not the famous Michelangelo our MJ loved because of his art.
Wow, I would say Helena’s comment lured out exactly one of those she was talking about. Your speech makes clear where you come from: You only use words like “vicious”, “vile” and “despicable” for bad human behavior and opinions, but not for a crime like sexual abuse or ped-lia. You call it a “sin” and the “sinners” possible allies? We call it a “crime” and “criminals” and we regard them as the scum of the earth. And none of it has any connection to Michael Jackson.
Same as for Susannerb the allegations about Michelangelo came as a complete surprise to me, and while I checked up how come so bold an accusation could be made so easily and so confidently too, the conversation between Susannerb and our new “allies” continued.
This time a reply arrived from a certain PanWise and his condescending and derogatory manner showed that the rejection of their “helping hand” is not to be tolerated by these people. If you don’t agree with their acceptance of art even from a criminal you will be named “melodramatic” and “juvenile” and likened to an immature adolescent.
Moreover you will be accused of denying the alleged criminal the right to have “flaws” and be seen as human:
Stop being so melodramatic susannerb. JamieT is no more a p..phile than (presumably) you are. A juvenile attack such as yours is sadly starting to surface as a pattern in the MJFam. It’s unfounded nasty slurs and insults which have made people like Joe Vogel, Willa Stillwater and Susan Fast become exasperated and disgusted with large sections of the fan base, and want to give up their excellent work on Michael Jackson which would be a huge shame. Just stop it.
The point that JamieT made stands in spite of your dissembling. Bad people do make good art. Are we so afraid of Michael Jackson becoming human? Laura Miller recently wrote a post for salon.com which, even though it was about authors, applies equally well to any area of the arts. She bemoans the fact that we see in authors we love the exemplary traits of their writing, as well as believing the sanitized version of their lives presented to us.
Still, there’s much to be said for getting past this form of hero worship. Most writers, like most people, are a mixture of the reprehensible and the admirable. Our own personal lives require that we learn to love people flaws and all. When you idealize someone, you can’t truly know him or her, and that makes real, adult love impossible.
Most people begin figuring out how to do this in their teens. It’s not an easy transition. Suddenly, every bad quality in our parents — people who were like gods to us as children — becomes a glaring, intolerable betrayal. They must be repudiated! We don’t realize until years later that this is the first step on the long road to seeing our parents as they really are and forgiving them for being human.
Similarly, needing to believe that your favorite author lived in an exemplary way, embodying all the virtues of his best work, is an adolescent desire, passionate but ultimately unfair. Learning the truth is disillusioning at first, but enlightening in the end. Part of the sadly underrated process of growing up is realizing that people, the world and life are no less beautiful and amazing for being imperfect.
My love for Michael is realistic. I won’t take away his humanity just because it’s politically incorrect in the fan base to admit to his many flaws. That is not me saying that Michael was a bad person, far from it. He was human.
This “realistic” love for Michael Jackson is an interesting euphemism for accepting the artist even in case the worst lies about him had been true (which they aren’t!).
When you listen to these arguments you can almost see the pedophilia advocates crawling into your homes and comfortably settling themselves in your armchairs. This smooth invasion is taking place also through such underhanded tricks like reducing Michael’s defendants to immature teens while they themselves are presented as wise adults who are already tired to wait for the rest to grow up and get “enlightened” too.
To tell you the truth we here are also far from spring chickens and the fact that these people are aiming at a younger generation is certainly not lost on us.
Their appeal to the young is indeed where the main danger is. They know that millions of Michael Jackson’s present supporters love him not only for his genius but for being a great and innocent human being in the first place and a martyr who suffered for his love of people, trust in human goodness and thinking of mankind better than it is.
But what is clear to us will probably not be that clear to a younger generation, and this is who these so-called new MJ “allies” are primarily targeting – they hope to mold the thinking of the young into a different pattern which will allow both doubting Michael’s innocence and admiration of his art, thus allowing them to eventually look at his alleged “flaws” as something unimportant.
If this were ever to happen it would be a disaster – for Michael Jackson and mankind.
Susannerb was again quick to react to the unwanted “ally” who was expressing these views. Her reply was absolutely fantastic in its clarity and inspiration:
Interesting, PanWise, how you lump things together. So to you being a ped-le is the same as having flaws or being human? No, you mix things up deliberately or don’t get the point. Where did I say MJ had no flaws? I am aware of every flaw MJ had, and I even love his flaws because it makes him human. But the accusation of being a ped-ile is something completely different. And whatever you mean with a “bad person”, it is even something different than that. I very well can listen to the music or love the art of a person with flaws, because this even may be part of his creativity. But I cannot love the music of a ped-ile, it’s impossible because it is one of the worst crimes. And I am convinced that such a person would not be able to create wonderful, positive, uplifting music for the benefit of mankind, like MJ did. It’s not in their DNA.
It’s hypocritical that you mention Vogel, Stillwater and Fast because their “disgust” with MJ fans goes into a completely different direction and you mix up things here the same way. Stop using their good names for your agenda! We are not talking about flaws here, and you know it!
If you love Michael Jackson, why do you defend his haters who say they “love Michael Jackson’s music .. but…”, as Terry Dutton said? Helena was talking about people who “love his music … in spite of thinking him to be a reprehensible human being” and who “think it possible to love a man irrespective of his sexual abuse of children” – and this is what you defend? Stop trying to convince us that this is normal!
When Susanne said that “It’s not in their DNA” she hit the nail on the head. Rotten hearts are indeed unable to create the wonderful and uplifting music and lyrics benefitting mankind like Michael Jackson did.
Music is a gift from the heavens and this is where they never enter and cannot even get a glimpse of, while Michael Jackson’s mind and heart were actually residing there – but those who don’t even have a concept of it will never understand.
And the exclamation “We are not talking about flaws here, and you know it!” is again very much to the point. What they are trying to do is pass off an alleged perversion for just a flaw and their zeal in promoting the idea shows that it is a strategy and is absolutely not a chance mistake.
The ultimate goal of these two guys’ pompous texts is to convince people that “no one is perfect” and that sexual corruption of children is just another of those human “flaws”. And by confusing people’s minds and calling it just a flaw they pave the way for its acceptance and all their talk around the subject has just one goal in mind – teaching people to take the rotten for something healthy and normal.
In reply to JamieT’s statement that “bad people do make good art and there is no way around it” I explained that we perfectly understand what hell they are trying to take us to:
The essence of the question is – HOW BAD should an artist be for his art to become unacceptable for others because they are simply unable to look into what he “created” or are totally unwilling to?
For every stage of society the margin will be a different one, so all of it boils down to what is accepted in society and what is not.
Now there is a social acceptance for adultery and homosexuality (though it has not always been so), and sometimes even murder – when it is self-defense or accident, for example. As soon as the society agrees that something is at least possible the art created by these people is no longer rejected either. And though their deeds may still give a certain coloring to the perception of their art, it does not make people reject it – because the phenomenon itself has begun to be accepted.
So what if the painter was a drunkard? Many of them are. So what if the rock singer was a womanizer? In some way it only makes him more attractive. So what if the composer took drugs? Well, it might even give a new dimension to his music…
When the society accepts something it doesn’t mean that it approves of it, but it means that it tolerates it and the deeds previously considered totally immoral now fall into the category of “things happen”.
So when you say that an artist can be loved and appreciated even despite him being a child abuser the essence of your idea is actually making pedophilia acceptable for the society and making people tolerant to it.
It is as simple as that.
Will you be able to love the art of a cannibal? Or appreciate the music created by a sadist? If there ever comes a time when people “appreciate” it, it means that human civilization has come to an end and human beings ceased to be human. Because human beings will simply throw up at a mere thought of what could be the “inspiration” for this kind of art.
Same with ped-lia which is overthrowing the principal law of nature and life in general – protection of the small, innocent and helpless and bringing them unharmed into an adult life.
I’m writing this not to allow the above activity of pedophilia activists (or people already brainwashed by them) to take us unawares. We should be prepared for what they are doing to Michael Jackson and via their horrid interpretation of him to human values in general.
Their method is to involve people in the discussion first and in the process envelope the subject with so many learned words that people eventually don’t know what to think and whom to side with, and this is when the natural barrier to crimes against a child may start to get eroded.
And who can be a better field for the discussion than the poor Michael Jackson? He was innocent, but his life is indeed the most convenient ground for toying with all sorts of ideas, and his charisma and life-long unjustified persecution give these people all necessary tools for pushing their agenda and even playing victim, hypocritically sympathizing with the nightmare Michael had to live in.
Actually the only thing they need to do is to seed doubt about Michael’s innocence in people’s minds and the rest of the job will be done by his art and genius. And this is the whole idea of their project.
In the battle between doubt and admiration for his art the art will naturally win, but doubt will unfortunately also sneak in, thus making a crack in the door for real child abusers who will take advantage of it reasonably counting on an opportunity for themselves too.
But in order to achieve this goal they first need to load the innocent Jackson with their own guilt and only then use him as a Troyan horse for their own jubilant entry.
In the same way parasites know that they have no future unless they penetrate (and ultimately ruin) the body of a much larger and healthy victim, and in this case the name of the victim is Michael Jackson.
THEY PLANNED IT LONG AGO
If you think that the above observations are far-fetched or ungrounded, we can produce proof that it was a pedophilia lobby who contributed most to smearing Michael Jackson’s good name.
The person who started it all – Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA attendee who simultaneously worked as Diane Dimond’s “best source” – was quite open about the plans of pedophiles to use MJ as their poster boy and spoke about it long before the Jordan Chandler disaster, triggered off by the same Gutierrez.His sensational revelations are buried in a couple of old interviews one of which was in the May 2006 issue of the British GQ magazine and the other is in a German newspaper and is therefore almost unknown to English-language speakers: http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170.
Previously I thought that it was all we had from Gutierrez about the plans of NAMBLA people against Jackson.
But life is full of surprises and when our commentators recently reopened the subject I recalled that Gutierrez’s book had an epilogue where he expressed his pro-pedophilia views which suspiciously coincided with the arguments of our correspondents.
And you know what I found there? A detailed description of the NAMBLA plans against Michael Jackson with Gutierrez even stating the exact time when they openly started to smear Michael!
The campaign began as early as 1989 in their so-called information bulletin which suddenly announced that Jackson “had a sexual attraction for children” and expressed their satisfaction that their “cause” was receiving attention through so famous a personality like MJ. This was four years before the Jordan Chandler event and the idea of the bulletin was naturally to slander him and send the lie running round the world.
The point that catches the eye here is that they put Michael Jackson’s name on their front page and it testifies to their scam against him like nothing else does.
Of course they knew that Michael was innocent. This mafia-like organization never outs their own people – it would be equivalent to the worst of betrayals and a sheer suicide for the “movement”. So the names of real pedophiles are always kept a closely guarded secret and even at their conventions where they see each other face to face they all go by aliases only and none of them know each other’s true names as the FBI agents who infiltrated the organization report it (for details see this post please).
But Michael was not one of them and sacrificing his good name was absolutely no problem for these people. The whole idea of the project was to seed as much rumor about him as possible and this is why his name was meant to be told. The goal was to slander the innocent and this was the reason for their publication.
They themselves preferred to stay in the shade while Michael Jackson was put out there for the media outcry and public indignation – the fate and comfort of the guilty did matter, while the crucifixion and ruin of the innocent did not.
And unless we realize that they didn’t give a damn about his fate it would be impossible to understand why they were throwing under the bus the one who was supposedly their most prized treasure, all the while keeping their own precious identities secret.
In his epilogue Gutierrez says:
The North American Men Boy Love Association (“NAMBLA”) is a group that approves of consentual sexual relations between men and boys. N A M B L A is pleased that the topic of pedophilia has attracted so much attention through such a famous personage as Michael Jackson. The organization spoke openly in its newsletter about Jackson’s sexual attraction toward children four years prior to the accusation in the Jordie Chandler case.
The publication reported the names of Jackson’s new friends and their travels with him.
Well, if they reported all his travels with his friends they must have been already spying on Jackson!
Let’s stop our thoughts from further racing and carefully collect the pieces we already know. At moments like this the various parts of a puzzle can suddenly come together and this is probably one of such moments.
PUTTING THE PUZZLE TOGETHER
1. From those two magazines with Gutierrez’s interviews we know that in 1986 the pedophilia lobby already wanted to turn the innocent Jackson into their “poster boy” and this is when Gutierrez started working against MJ.
The 1986 NAMBLA convention he attended in Los Angeles was an international one so there is every reason to believe that members from other countries were also involved and charged with the same task. Ped-le Rodney Allen from Canada (another of Diane Dimond’s sources) could easily be one of them.
Three years after the convention, in 1989 their information bulletin already said that they were “pleased” with the then state of affairs regarding Michael Jackson, i.e. their smear job against him. The fact that pleased them most was that they attracted attention to their “cause”(so this was one of the first goals).
However at that time it was still wishful thinking because the general public was of a totally different opinion of Michael Jackson despite these people’s claims. Actually their real smear work started with that information bulletin which was an open call against Michael. Though of course those three years (1986-89) were not spent in vain – all this time they had been actively spreading rumors about him, and the first person tirelessly working on it was Gutierrez.
Considering that since that moment four more years passed before Jordan Chandler’s case erupted in 1993, all in all the pedophilia lobby was working for at least seven years on taking the unsuspecting Jackson into their orbit and load on him everything they themselves were guilty of.
And mind you, these conclusions arise from the information they are providing to us themselves.
2. To spy on Jackson they were to establish contacts with the opportunistic maids, bodyguards and probably some people in the music industry and this job was done by Gutierrez who entered every crack in Michael Jackson’s household and formed a friendship with every Spanish-speaking maid and bodyguard in his surrounding. And again we know it from what he is telling us himself.
“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA (personal assistant), Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.”
His book says that in addition to Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdock Gutierrez’s contacts stretched to the Neverland Five group, the maids in Michael’s house in Encino and Norma Salinas in Evan Chandler’s home, and lots of others including the parents of all children Michael was friends with.
Many of his “best” sources were guided by Gutierrez at every stage of the project – whether they were still working for Jackson or were already fired by him for stealing, etc. and filing lawsuits against him for unfair dismissal.
It is extremely interesting to find out from the author’s notes in VG’s book that the person instrumental in making him win the confidence of those Latinos was a Chilean Mario Kreutzberger, also known as Don Francisco, a very popular television host of “Sabado Gigante” (Giant Saturday) on the American TV.
This show originated in Chile but in 1986 was moved to the US and from then on has been broadcast from Florida by the Hispanic Univision TV for the many-million American and South American Spanish-speaking audience.Gutierrez says that he was invited by Mario Kreutzberger on his super popular Saturday night show on three occasions where Gutierrez was given a chance to “expose” Jackson to Kreutzberger’s 2.2 million audience.
He also says:
“My thanks to the animator of “Sabado Gigante,” Mario Kreutzberger, not only for inviting me on his show on three occasions to expose my investigations, but also for being a source of reassurance and confidence for the many witnesses”
Now what the hell does that mean?
It means that the highly influential Don Francisco who is also worth $100 million helped Gutierrez to win confidence of all those Spanish-speaking maids, assistants, bodyguards and whatnot, and that he “reassured” them that what they were doing against Michael Jackson was okay.
It could have been done through letters of recommendation for Gutierrez, telephone calls and possibly even money. And the crucial factor here is Mario Kreutzberger is extremely popular among the Spanish speaking residents of the US and a person whom they fully and unconditionally trust (he also runs a Teleton in Chile to raise funds for disabled children).
And when all those maids saw Gutierrez on three of Kreutzberger’s programs their last doubts must have fallen off by themselves – they turned into Gutierrez’s best friends and went out of their way to cooperate with him in his work against Jackson.
I’m saying it not to justify them but to solely put the puzzle together and explain why it was so easy for Gutierrez to win these people’s confidence and do his smear job against Jackson.
So now that Mario Kreutzberger is closing (in September 2015) his Sabado Gigante show after running it for 53 years we must thank him not only for the entertainment he provided each Saturday to a multi-million Hispanic population of the US, but also for his participation in the ruin of Michael Jackson, as Gutierrez reveals it.
3. Those seven years of constant spying against Jackson were also evidently the period when pedophile Rodney Allen found access to Michael’s Neverland and was able to draw a detailed plan of the house for one of the boys whom he later trained to tell lies about Jackson.
As you remember this 1995 project went nowhere as the Canadian police nipped it in the bud – which drew a wail of disappointment from Diane Dimond who had been in long correspondence with Rodney Allen and was hoping for a good scandal.
4. Those seven years before 1993 were also evidently the time when the two books haters so much like to talk about (“Boys will be boys” and “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”) found their way into Michael’s Neverland. During the 1993 raid they were taken from a locked file cabinet in his closet and were admitted into evidence twelve years later, at the 2005 trial.
Nothing could be easier than planting those books through some opportunistic maids or even the above Rodney Allen – if he knew Neverland well enough to draw a detailed plan of the house, he surely attended it in his personal capacity too and could have left there anything he liked.
A quick reminder about those books and why they were most probably planted in Michael’s home.
- “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” was a gift from a fan. This was clear from the inscription it carried: “To Michael from your (heart symbol) fan Rhonda…XXXOOO.” The notation “1983 Chicago” also appeared on the page.
- The other, “Boys Will Be Boys,” contained the following note on the flyleaf: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.” The note was signed “MJ” in Mr. Jackson’s hand. The inscription was certainly meant for someone else, as people don’t sign books for themselves, but for some reason this book still remained in Michael’s home.
The Associated press reported:
“The books, which included a number of pictures of nude boys swimming, running, playing, and jumping, were seized by Los Angeles detective Rosibel Smith [Ferrufino] from a locked cabinet in the singer’s bedroom during the 1993 child molestation investigation”.
I remember reading an article which said that when Michael was informed about those books and where they were found he was very much surprised to hear about it.
However the most interesting point is not even the books themselves or the locked file cabinet but the fact that the person summoned by the police to open it was Blanca Francia who had not been working in Neverland for two years by then.
In 1993 Michael Jackson’s new maid was Adrian McManus but Detective Rosibel Ferrufino nevertheless testified that the cabinet was opened by Blanca Francia, the maid who left Michael’s employment in 1991.
I wonder how the police knew who had the key. And it is even more interesting to know why Blanca Francia kept the key from Michael Jackson’s cabinet in her home after she stopped working for him and was away from Neverland for two years.
Are we to understand that the file cabinet was locked all this time and was waiting for the good old Blanca Francia to come one day and open it to the police?
Only God and Blanca Francia know the answer to these chilling questions – and probably the NAMBLA people too.
5. Thinking about their plan regarding Michael Jackson I also suddenly recollected the recorded telephone conversation between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler where Evan said that everything was going according to plan and it was not just his and there were other people involved in it:
- “Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved“
What a strange occurrence again. So there was actually a plan? And it was about turning Michael’s life into a massacre, as we remember? And there were even some other people involved in it? Then who were those remarkable people who planned that massacre, I wonder?
“A VICTORY FOR ALL OF US”
In his epilogue Gutierrez someone mysteriously says that Jackson was a “hope” for boy-lovers and quotes them as saying that his “victory could be a victory for all of us”.
He also reveals that three months after the accusations (sometime in November-December 1993) NAMBLA wrote a cover story about Jackson again where they “unwittingly” hurt Jackson by associating him with their organization.
In the context we are describing here the word “unwittingly” sounds especially farcical and absurd:
“Three months after the accusations were made public, the magazine dedicated its cover story to Jackson. The article contains strong statements which unwittingly hurt Jackson by associating him with that organization of pedophiles. They wrote:
- “Jackson is a hope in a society that condemns us. A victory for Jackson can be a victory for all of us. What is the big deal in this case? When we think that the boys had a good time with Michael even in a sexual way.”
A victory? What victory are these people talking about if Michael was in the midst of a horrible scandal, was barely alive and his good name, life and career were nearly ruined?
The probable answer is that they regarded the hysteria around Jackson as the beginning of their victory that could ultimately pave the way for their acceptance in the society. Michael Jackson was a sort of a sacrificial lamb for them and the more he suffered the better it was for these people as his hardships were probably even meant to evoke sympathy with people.
A more preferable variant was most probably even his untimely death. They would have labeled him a martyr – who fell for their cause of course – and his art, genius and charisma would have done the rest of the job.
What’s obvious is that clearing Michael of suspicion was absolutely not in their interests. So much work has been done for convincing everyone that he is “one of them”, and now all of it is suddenly ruined by Jordan’s description found inconsistent with those damned photos and Michael Jackson proving himself innocent?
No way, boys, this couldn’t be tolerated, and since the first attempt was only half a success, the efforts had to be doubled to bring it to a logical end.
And this is what they indeed did – in 1995 came an (unsuccessful) scam from Rodney Allen that was followed by some ridiculous letters from anonymous people to the FBI to check up on Michael’s train journeys and past telephone conversations with a certain Terry George.
Gutierrez also wrote to the FBI to check up whether they had anything on Jackson from some Mormon agent who allegedly investigated Michel in the 80s, but was disappointed to know that they didn’t. However if there were no facts they had to be invented and here came the non-existent video tape of MJ “molesting” his nephew which landed Gutierrez and Diane Dimond in a lawsuit which MJ won in 1997 and this more or less shut them up for a time being.
However one book of lies followed another and all these efforts were crowned with a huge Arvizo case where the same old gang took part again – Blanca Francia and the Neverland 5, and it was again Gutierrez who served as their main consultant and was preparing programs first on NBS and then on ABC together with another big MJ friend – Martin Bashir.
In short once they cut their teeth into Michael Jackson they never let him go.
GUTIERREZ’S END IN THE EPILOGUE
In the epilogue of his book Gutierrez couldn’t resist to express his views on the past and possible future of his favorite subject and for a start gave away his own sexual inclinations by the following statement:
Jackson’s career and fame have severely diminished. For many people around the world, he is either a pedophile or pervert.
What a jaw-dropping statement. Why either-or? Isn’t pedophilia the embodiment of perversion? We know that it is, but apparently Gutierrez doesn’t think so and doesn’t even notice how tale-telling his slip of the tongue is.
The next thing he does is showing the way he twisted Michael Jackson’s words and turned them into their parody. For example, whenever Michael spoke of children Gutierrez translated it as boys and this is how he created many of his myths:
During a separate interview, Jackson made comments which, with hindsight, are a revelation to readers of his sexual preference for boys:
“One of my favorite pastimes is being with children, talking to them and playing with them. Children know a lot of secrets and it is difficult to get them to tell. My most creative moments have almost always come when I am with children. When I am with them, the music comes to me as easily as breathing. When I’m tired or bored, children revive me. Two brown eyes look at me so profoundly, so innocently, and I murmur: this child is a song. Children are incredible.”
Then Gutierrez makes himself ridiculous by describing things Michael never possessed – “a statue of a naked boy for half a million” for example, or life-sized mannequins that are “nude or dressed in sensual undergarments” only:
“Jackson’s desire for boys has led him to surround himself with constant reminders of them. He has purchased a statue of a naked boy for almost $ 500,000.00. The paintings and drawings in his home are all of children.
He has life-sized mannequins in his bedroom which are nude, except for some sensual undergarments.”
And finally Gutierrez proceeds to tell us how well accepted boy-lovers were in some ancient cultures and we have an acute feeling that he is nostalgic for those blessed barbaric times.
Sorry for repeating it in full:
“The pedophiles in the organization consider Jackson as one of their own. They perceive him as an idol who has put into practice what others dream of.
Historians report that the topic of pedophilia is not new. In some civilizations and cultures it was considered normal for heterosexual men, married or single, to have sexual relations with children, such as in ancient Greece, Persia, medieval Japan, and among native Americans. The Samurai taught boys the art of fighting with a sable, how to ride a horse, and how to make love, practicing amongst themselves. Twentieth century Arabic poems show that a Muslim society found satisfaction with slaves boys and boy prostitutes at parties. Another example is the city of Zambia in New Guinea. Until 1940, adult males penetrated the anuses of boys with their penises prior to adolescence and inserted their semen to give them “masculinity.” This ritual of depositing their sperm inside the boys was considered “better” and “healthier” than their own mother’s milk.
Important historical figures have been suspected or identified as being pedophiles engaging in sexual activity with minors, including: Socrates, Plato, Michelangelo, Franz Schubert (whose partner was Johann Michael Vogl when Vogl was 13). Nero publicly married a 12 year-old boy named Spartus, who inherited his wealth. Leonardo Da Vinci left written testimony of his relationship with two minors. One was Giacomo Coproti, whom the sculptor called “Salai” (the “devil” in an Italian folk tale), since the 10 year-old stole from him. They slept together and all of the artist’s attention was focused on the boy. The artist used Salai as a model for his sculptures and paintings. Da Vinci spoke of him as a beautiful child to whom he gave all his love.
The motion picture industry is at times a messenger for pedophile’s love stories. The movie “A Man Without A Face,” directed by and starring Mel Gibson, was based on the 1973 novel by Isabelle Holland, who told the story of a lover of children and his young partner. In the novel, the physical relationship between a boy and his older friend is clear and, furthermore, the boy is purported not to have been psychologically affected by the sex. The result on screen was quite different. The film version does not refer to sex between the boy and his older friend. William Hurt did a movie in London based on the story of another sexual lover of underage boys. The film, “Second Best,” was based on a book written by David Cook. The same thing occurred in terms of the difference between the novel and the motion picture version. In the novel, it is clear that the single, almost 40 year old man is sexually attracted to the 10 year old boy, and seeks to adopt and spend intimate nights together in a sleeping bag. Yet in the movie the relationship is depicted as a healthy desire by an adult to adopt and form a family.
Pedophiles fall in love, they become obsessed and feel desire, just like a heterosexual or homosexual persons. In most cases the relations between “couples” don’t last for long, since when the child grows, the pedophile loses interest, at least in sexual terms. Now that we better understand the sexual drive some adults feel for children we are able to comprehend more completely Jordie and Jackson’s experience, a couple that loved intensely in a very erotic way.
It is indeed the end – the end of Victor Gutierrez and others of his kind who first make up stories about innocent people and then project their own perversions on to them. Their minds are so twisted that no matter what comes their way they always see “boys”.
All people see a normal movie directed by Mel Gibson (who also directed “The Passions of the Christ”), but a boy-lover knows that it is about a ped-le – the original novel was about sex with a minor, who “wasn’t psychologically affected by it” as the author tenderly assures us.
And when a boy-lover sees another of those movies it is “clear” to him that the main character was sexually attracted to a boy, while the normal audience thinks it was a just a desire to adopt a child and form a family.
Did you ever think why these boy-lovers know what books these innocent movies were based on?
They know it because they read those books – this is why. We don’t read them and have no way to know, but for them it is their favorite reading and this is why they do.
Incidentally, Michael Jackson’s detractors also know all the photographers who made pictures of boys swimming and jumping in those two books found in Michael’s home and triumphantly reveal to us that some of them were boy-lovers too, making a conclusion that it is “proof of his guilt”.
But if seeing the photos of some boys on the beach without knowing a thing about the photographers who made them is enough “proof” for these people, then my congratulations go to those of you who were unfortunate enough to see the two movies mentioned above – you are ped-les too!
You wonder why???
Because the original books for those movies were supposedly about ped-les! And don’t even try to tell us that you didn’t know! None of your meek explanations will be accepted – you should have known what books those movies were based on!
And the same goes for Michael Jackson! He was also obliged to know the biography of every photographer who shot those children on the beach! If ped-lia advocates know them because they are in fact their favorite photographers, everyone else should know that too!
If you follow the logic of these madmen you will simply go insane. And these people are indeed mad – in the clinical meaning of the word. Wherever they look they see only ped-les. And their vision is so twisted that they throw into that class even Michelangelo, and over here Gutierrez and our own correspondents are in a touching solidarity with each other.
WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A GENIUS
Michelangelo was not a ped-le. He was most probably not a homosexual either though some people of his time thought him to be (he always vehemently denied it). He simply never married but with the amount of time and passion he put into his work he probably didn’t even need a marriage companion.
And no one would probably tolerate a spouse like him. Michelangelo didn’t mind the squalor in his home which no servant could tolerate for long and was famously unconcerned about his appearance, often sleeping in his clothes and boots.
Instead he was ready to lie for years on his back painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. At the age of 37 the rigors of the job left him with increasing infirmities forever after.
His face was disfigured – in his youth he received a blow on the nose from a fellow student probably jealous of his talent that left it permanently smashed.
“I gave him such a blow on the nose that I felt bone and cartilage go down like biscuit beneath my knuckles,” Pietro Torrigiano later bragged, “and this mark of mine he will carry with him to the grave.”
Critics say that “he had a contentious personality and quick temper, which led to fractious relationships, often with his superiors. This not only got Michelangelo into trouble, it created a pervasive dissatisfaction for the painter, who constantly strived for perfection but was unable to compromise.”
Michelangelo was a natural recluse. He was melancholic and introverted, but touchy and explosive. He lived a temperate life, and preferred to be alone “like a genie shut up inside a bottle”, contemplating death.
- “I am here in great distress and with great physical strain, and have no friends of any kind, nor do I want them; and I do not have enough time to eat as much as I need; my joy and my sorrow/my repose are these discomforts,” he once wrote.
He lived a very austere and, by every indication, chaste life. Some scholars love to talk about an incidence when a man once approached Michelangelo about taking his son on as an apprentice, telling him that boy could double as a willing partner in bed. But these scholars will never tell you that Michelangelo refused and sought to get the man fired from his job for having made the offer.
When he was 59 he wrote letters mentioning his strong attachment to a certain nobleman Tommaso Cavalieri who was 34 years his younger. Michelangelo insisted that their friendship was platonic – he believed that a beautiful body was the outward manifestation of a beautiful soul, and scholars are still debating whether it was homosexuality or a bittersweet longing by a childless and aging Michelangelo for a father-son relationship.
Michelangelo also wrote letters of love and admiration to a widow Vittoria Colonna whose intellect and piety made her stand out among the women in Michelangelo’s surrounding. She soon died and he was devastated.
Michelangelo’s poetry touches on everything from sex and aging to his overactive bladder (he bemoans a “drippy duct compelling me awake too early”). But many of his 300 poems are also about a human soul that can reunite with an almighty God through love and ecstasy, and about the one universal Truth connected to Earth.
He made his famous Pieta from a single stone when he was only 25.
At age 26 he was already working on an order for his famous 17-foot statue of David carved from a single stone again.
When he was 33 he was asked to decorate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican with images of 12 apostles, but Michelangelo knew better and painted more than 300 figures with scenes from Genesis instead.
He fired all his assistants as inept and completed the 65-foot ceiling alone, spending four years on his back.
When the door to the chapel was unbolted everyone flocked in and stood “speechless with astonishment”, as his pupil said.
The most iconic image of the chapel is a portrayal of God and Adam with outstretched hands to each other.
So by all accounts Michelangelo was an extremely independent, unusual and difficult man.
He was sensitive and insecure about his physical appearance and lack of education, and everything I read about him make me perfectly understand why Michael Jackson loved him so much.
He not only admired Michelangelo’s incredible genius but also had reason enough to relate himself to the human being Michelangelo was and probably even found some correlations with the circumstances of his life.
What I am really trying to say by this side essay about Michelangelo is that as long as a genius does not work against the foundations of life he has the right to be different.
He has the right to live in squalor and be difficult, to be melancholy, explosive or depressed, to live all alone and be friendless, to vehemently fight for what he believes in and do what he thinks right and even defy the accepted rules.
A genius is different because he sees the world with different eyes. He is open to eternity and speaks with future generations through the universal truth he seeks and achieves, so that even in five hundred years people still look in awe at his masterpieces, feel the bond with the past within seconds and realize that the real truth has no boundaries in time and space – it is right here and is even tangible to a touch.
And it’s no use comparing the lifestyle of a genius with that of an ordinary human being – ordinary people live a life for themselves seeking comfort and well-being for their families trying not to interfere with the comfort and well-being of their other ordinary fellow beings.
But as a result none of them leave even a fraction of the legacy of a genius who lives his life for others and who often has to sacrifice his life to seeking the universal truth and reaching into eternity.
So don’t be too harsh on Michael Jackson. He was a genius and you can’t expect him to be the same as the ordinary us. What’s really important is that he wasn’t a criminal and was an innocent man – and all the rest of his difference we can perfectly live with and even admire.