Skip to content

PARIS JACKSON’S Tattoo and the MESSAGE of MICHAEL JACKSON’S Dangerous Album Cover

June 3, 2016

A lot of questions arrived while I took a hiatus from the blog. Of course, this break was not only due to the need to do planting in my garden – the main reason is the shock and the near-coma all sane people in Russia are currently in while the torrents of lies, hypocrisy and so-called ‘patriotism’ are ravaging my homeland. The closest analogy to it would be observing the events of George Orwell’s novel live and to tell you the truth, this is not easy, guys.

In the meantime another type of craziness – injustice and spite towards Michael Jackson do not seem to abate either. People still have ridiculous opinions about him and stick to vile dogmas about MJ though they have long been proven to be myths.

Funny, but when you compare both of these phenomena you can’t see much difference between the two. Both are based on cynicism, endless lies and media brainwashing. Both discourage people from fact-checking and keep them in the habitual comfort of prejudices and stereotypes acquired decades ago.  Both make people behave at their worst and allow them to be free from conscience constraints.

In fact, if you know how some people distorted the reality around Michael Jackson and incited mass hatred for him on cooked-up allegations, you will also know how others can blind the perception of millions on other issues and make them believe the most rotten lies.

What I am trying to say is that the face of evil and its operation pattern is the same, and it is only its scope which is different. To let this evil take power over you all it takes is the deep cynicism and shocking lies on their side and disinterest, indifference and ignorance on yours.

PARIS JACKSON’S TATTOS

The question that arrived recently concerned Paris Jackson’s tattoo and had a surprising conclusion:

“I have a question about Michael Jackson’s Dangerous album cover. Paris, MJ’s daughter just recently got a tattoo of MJ’s Dangerous album cover as seen here: https://twitter.com/ParisJackson/status/734907092683751425/photo/1 in which she said “Never forget your roots. Always be proud of where you came from”. What does a person’s roots has to do with MJ’s Dangerous album cover? To me it seems like some type of insult.”Paris Jackson Dangerous cover tatto

Insult??  But to me Paris’s tattoo is clearly a loving tribute to her father. And the choice of the ‘Dangerous’ album cover suggests that she is perfectly aware of the tragic circus her father had to endure for as long as he lived. And it is also very meaningful that she selected Michael’s eyes for the tattoo – now he and she will be looking at the outside world together.

Paris accompanied the photo of her ink with a quote from her father’s book, Dancing the Dream – the words which he evidently often told her in person: “The meaning of life is contained in every single expression of life. It is present in the infinity of forms and phenomena that exist in all of creation”. And it is to this quote that she added her love and appreciation for her dad: “Never forget your roots, and always be proud of where you came from”.

A little earlier this year Paris had another tattoo on her wrist made in Michael’s writing and most probably quoting him again: “Queen of my heart”. Her Instagram post said: “To everyone else, he was the King of Pop. To me, well, he was the king of my heart”, revealing how raw the wound of her loss still is.

Can we imagine the pain that is still deep in this girl’s heart?

Paris Jackson with her fatherIt must be unspeakable.

To add to the story a month prior to that Paris made a photo of herself against her father’s mural, which she accompanied with just one word – ARCHANGEL.

The resulting picture will take your breath away. They look almost the same age – she has grown up and he is forever young, and both seem to be together, standing side by side, talking, smiling and probably sharing a good joke. The illusion is complete and is carrying your imagination away to portray a picture of how it could have been if the evils of society had not run him down into the ground.

Paris Jackson against the mural of MJ

‘My archangel’: Paris Jackson shares touching Instagram tribute to late father Michael Jackson as she poses next to a mural of the King of Pop

PUBLISHED: 06:40 GMT, 14 March 2016 | UPDATED: 08:20 GMT, 15 March 2016

Her father is one of the most iconic figures of popular music. And Paris Jackson paid a touching tribute to the late Michael Jackson late on Saturday night.

The 17-year-old shared a sweet Instagram post of a mural of her father captured during his 1980s heyday.
‘Archangel’: Paris Jackson paid a touching tribute to the late Michael Jackson late on Saturday night

In the snap she poses next to the image of MJ while wearing a nearly matching leather biker jacket, as the two of them cross their arms. Paris looks lovingly over her shoulder at her father in the tender snap.

She captioned the Instagram moment with a single and yet very powerful word to describe her father: ‘archangel’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3491024/My-archangel-Paris-Jackson-shares-touching-Instagram-tribute-late-father-Michael-Jackson-poses-mural-King-Pop.html#ixzz4A54Hls9q

Some readers of the above missed the whole point and thought that a better word would be a “guardian angel” which they consider more appropriate here.

However Paris knows better, and the 11 years she spent with her father gave her reason enough to say that he was not only an angel, but in fact, the chief of angels (which “archangel” literally means).

She may have also be alluding to the biblical Archangel Michael – the one who is named by the Book of Revelations as the one who will defeat the power of evil (dragon) by means of the power of good.

21

LaChapelle also sees Michael as an archangel

If this is what Paris really had in mind, she is not the only one. Photographer LaChapelle also depicted Michael as the archangel triumphing over the Beast, making a sort of a prophecy that in the spiritual battle against evil Michael’s ideals of humaneness will one day triumph over the dark side of men.

WHO IS MICHAEL JACKSON?

Four years ago Paris outburst to explain to the world what a unique man her father was. When someone anonymous trolled her with a question: “Who is Michael Jackson?” the 14-year old girl said:

“who is michael jackson? are you serious?

please excuse me so I can rant.

michael jackson was the king of pop rock and soul . he was a genius . he was a warrior . he was a prisoner in this hell hole we call society . he was the bravest man i’ve ever known . he was an angel sent from heaven . not only was he the greatest and most talented man , but a philanthropist and a patriarch for the jackson family . the glue that kept everyone together . he loved and cared for children and cared so much to make this world a better place .

he was goofy , crazy , hilarious , loving , kind , beautiful , lovable , incredible , and the best , most loving father probably to ever exist . i am so grateful and honored to have known him for over 10 years . he was my life . the only thing that really brought me true happiness .

michael jackson was the greatest thing that ever happened to the music industry . . . and my life”

Even the Celeb Dirty Laundry staff was amazed and their reporter expressed a sincere hope that Paris will continue to spread love and understanding, and will crusade for the reputation of Michael Jackson as she is the one who really knew him and better than anyone else too:

Paris Jackson Defends Michael Jackson On Twitter and Formspring

SEPTEMBER 5, 2012

Paris about her father when she was 14 - pic.twitter.com.ZSrW5XYb1z“Paris’ account is filled with pride, love, and, perhaps mostly, grief. It is undeniable that Paris still deeply mourns her father’s passing. As she should. Although Paris is now surrounded by a huge family (many of whom seem to be fighting for the late Pop Prince’s estate and custody of his kids), no one can ever take the place of her dad.

I think we get so caught up in Michaels’ contribution to music that we forget the people who knew him best. I hope that Paris can stay strong and continue to spread love and understanding, and will crusade for the reputation of the Michael Jackson she knew better than anyone else.”

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2012/paris-jackson-defends-michael-jackson-on-twitter-and-formspring-0905/

She knew better than anyone else is the crucial point here, so the opinion of this thoughtful young girl is by far more valuable than the judgment of millions who use as their sources someone’s idle and vicious gossip, and dirty imagination of their own.

WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE DANGEROUS COVER

The question addressed to me also touched upon the Dangerous cover and the monkey at the top of it:

“Also, when I searched for the meaning of MJ’s ‘Dangerous’ album cover, this is what one person said about some of the meanings on his ‘Dangerous’ cover:

“At the top of the Album, there is a Monkey being crowned and MJ is well-known as the King of Pop. I don’t think MJ would have thought comparing himself to a Chimp was racist or insulting, he loved animals- maybe he was suggesting the TPTB saw him as a Monkey, THEIR monkey, the star of the Circus they started”. (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=205638&page=2) Why would MJ consider himself as a monkey or think others saw him as a monkey? This is not good at all. Please answer my question Helena. Thanks.”

Well, let me give it a try.

First I looked up the TPTB abbreviation and found that it means “The Powers That Be”. In the opinion of conspiracy believers these “powers” are some mysterious “Illuminati” who are allegedly ruling the world.

But look here, guys – for various parts of the world “the powers that be” are different and this is no big secret to anyone. In my country, for example, the TPTB are the security services, permeating the whole of the country and having a nearly full power over the media and every other aspect of our life.

In the US the TPTB are evidently the various groups of the super-rich who hold their power irrespective of who is the current President and who guide public opinion via their own or sympathetic media and who exert much influence on social life by promoting what they deem necessary and by smearing those who are not to their liking.

Whoever these TPTB are, even judging by the incredible media bias against Jackson and their thorough suppression of the truth of his innocence, there can’t be any doubt that his harassment was orchestrated by someone with a very foul agenda and ways and means to implement it.

In my opinion the group most interested in taking Michael down were real boy-lovers who first wanted to throw Michael into a bad class and then capitalize on his charisma and popularity for their own social acceptance. For proof it is enough to recall Victor Gutierrez who, besides being MJ’s worst harasser, was also a NAMBLA-conference attendee, who openly spoke in the 80s about the hopes and plans of these people. And once their “program” was launched, others readily joined in … however this is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is the Dangerous album cover and what the monkey is doing at its top, and what all those other enigmatic elements mean and whether Michael had any special idea behind it all.

Dangerous album cover 1

When doing my reading for this post I was amazed by the nonsense most people are writing to interpret the picture. Some are busy looking for “satanic” symbols as proof of Michael being a “devil worshiper”. Others find Illuminati on every pillar. As to Michael Jackson’s best friends – the media – they never fail to note that the album cover is “a combination of bad taste, irony, opulence, artistic choreography, power, influence, jungle and urban in the same time, snobbery combined with humility” all of which “defines Michael Jackson’s creations” in their opinion.

What’s interesting is at the very same time the painter who created the album cover is a very popular and sought-after artist who is considered by many “a very talented and soft-spoken genius” (and you said there was no bias?)

A certain Susan Fast, who wrote a whole book about Michael’s Dangerous album and is the director of a “Program on Gender studies and Feminist research” at McMaster University, wrote an article called “Michael Jackson: Posthuman” to promote some pseudo-scientific absurdities that have nothing to do with Jackson. Her introduction says:

“The album cover for Michael Jackson’s album Dangerous was painted by American pop-surrealist artist Mark Ryden. In it, he depicts a world in which the boundaries between human and animal, living and dead, whole and part, and celestial and terrestrial have been crossed and fused.

Surrealist painters like Ryden often aim to collapse such categories – to reconcile, in their art, what seems to be irreconcilable in life. But actually, this boundary-crossing does happen in life – increasingly so – and corresponds to what some have called posthumanism.”

A “posthuman” specimen in her opinion is the poor Michael. Her ideas are based on the usual erroneous statements which are the regular media standard when it comes to Michael Jackson, routinely claiming that his entire career was “defined by his rejection of normal boundaries”, “transgression of societal norms” and “extreme modifications” (as if he never had his vitiligo that forced on him so radical a transformation).

All of these are grave stereotypes imposed on us by the media and for so long a time too that no one challenges them any more. The only difference between the media and this author is that the latter is on the defensive side of MJ claiming that all the “transgressions” she attributes to Jackson are okay. In fact she even claims that “by his life and art” Michael Jackson allegedly said that “order and normality are illusions”.

But Michael never said or meant anything of the kind! Normality was exactly what he was seeking most. He was cherishing innocence, simplicity and humaneness, and was living his ideals, while the world around him lived according to its own rules and now this “hell hole we call society” (to quote Paris Jackson) is trying to interpret Michael’s life, music and artwork via its own artificial “posthuman” constructs.

What amazes me most is that all these people who analyze the Dangerous album cover do not take the trouble to find out whether Michael made any input into that painting at all and whether the details of the picture are the fruit of the artist’s imagination instead of Jackson’s.

This differentiation between the two seems to be the first and most obvious thing to do, however as far as I know no one ever did it, which is an absolute shame – because if you look up the other artwork of Mark Ryden you will realize that the use of all those “masonic” numbers and symbols are actually the artist’s signature style – up to a point that he marks all his paintings and even personal messages with a stamp of an eye.

Mark Ryden - the Ecstacy of Cecelia, 1998

Mark Ryden, ‘The ecstacy of Cecelia’, 1998

And the more he progressed from his initial illustrations of other people’s music (the first was for Warrant’s “Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich” album) to his later really weird paintings expressing his own self, the more you realize who should be the real hero of Susan Fast’s “posthumanism”.

Mark Ryden - Blood

Mark Ryden, ‘The Cloven Bunny’ (Blood series), 2003

It should be Mark Ryden, the artist who is indeed sort of advocating that “order and normality are an illusion”, and absolutely not Michael Jackson who would probably be abhorred by some of Ryden’s current paintings.

To make sure that the Dangerous cover elements are almost wholly the work of the artist’s imagination (and not Michael Jackson’s) here is Mark Ryden’s interview about the picture.

WHAT THE ARTIST SAID

In 2001 Mark Ryden gave an interview to a MJ fan club. The full of it is here while I will select only some excerpts.

 Can you give the fans a little information about yourself? In your own words, who is Mark Ryden? 

There is a Biography and Artist statement on my web site that pretty much tells who I am, but I guess I would say I am just a guy who loves to paint. I have always loved to paint and never questioned that that is what I would do with my life. I love to collect things (toys, medical things, children’s books, figurines, knick-knacks, paper ephemera, etc.) 

Mark Ryden portrait

Mark Ryden in his studio. Photo by Liz Huston, http://www.photomonium.net

How did you get involved with doing CD covers? 

I had a portfolio of pretty out of the mainstream work when I graduated from Art Center. I did one Album cover that became pretty visible (Warrant’s “Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich”) Other Record companies started contacting me and it just grew from there. 

Mark Ryden - Dirty, Rotten, Filthy, Stinking, Rich - Warrant album cover

Mark Ryden’s ‘Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich’ for Warrant’s album, 1989

What process was involved in your being chosen to create the  ‘Dangerous’ album cover? Did you know Michael prior to this work, and if you did, how? 

I had previously worked with the Art Director at Sony Music (Nancy Donald) on several other projects and when she was working on the Michael Jackson project she thought of me. Michael was shown a portfolio of my work and he liked it very much. I then met with him at his recording studio where I got to hear a little of the new music and talk about the idea. From there I had about a week to create some ideas. I did 5 very elaborate pencil drawings which were shown to Michael. There was one which stood out which everybody including Michael seemed to like and that is what I painted. 

[A QUICK RECAP: So Mark Ryden showed Michael pictures like the one he did for Warrant and Michael liked them, and this is how the artist got commissioned for the job. He listened to some of Michael’s new music and they discussed the general idea (he speaks of meeting him just once to discuss the concept), after which Ryden made 5 variants that “were shown” to Michael, evidently in the absence of the artist. One of them was selected by “everybody”, including MJ and (naturally) the Sony Art Director and possibly other Sony officials, so the decision-making was actually a joint one.]

So there were 5 pre’ Dangerous drawings? Can you tell us what the others were like? 

They did all seem to be in the same general style as the one I did. One concept was in more of a Circus Poster motif with a skeleton jumping out of a clown’s gut. One sketch focused closer on that girl standing on the hand holding the skull which is in the final version. One idea was similar to the final except that it was an airy light outdoor scene with Michael’s eyes floating in the clouds above Bubbles who was standing on a heap of animals. 

There are several similarities between the “Leave Me Alone” video and the Dangerous cover. Did this video influence your work on the Dangerous cover? 

Definitely. […] The “Leave me Alone” video blew me away when I first saw it. It was very inspirational.[…]The design and subjects were great. 

[POINTS TO REMEMBER: So all the five sketches revolved around one concept, apparently proposed by Michael Jackson and including the motif of a circus and Michael’s eyes, possibly staring at its participants, spectators and those who created it. One of the drawings even had his eyes “floating in the clouds” over the heap of animals beneath.

The girl with a huge skull (yes, that child is a girl) was meant to be someone very important as one of the sketches was focusing on her as a central figure.

Leave me alone - three dogs

The dogs in suits follow Michael on the amusement ride

It also turns out that the Dangerous cover was heavily influenced by the “Leave Me Alone” video which also had the idea of a circus where Michael was seen tied with ropes, dancing in chains, treated like an animal in a circus and dogged by dogs with cameras in the literal meaning of the word – which naturally reminds us of the crowned dog in the imperial regalia on the Dangerous cover too.

Leave me alone -  the jawIt wouldn’t hurt either to draw a comparison between the giant jaws in “Leave me alone” which are ready to devour Michael approaching it in a small boat and the machinery which is seen working in a huge gape in the center of the Dangerous cover.]

‘Dangerous’ is without a doubt one of the most impressive works ever done for an album cover. How long did it take you to complete this project, from start to finish? 

It was by far my most ambitious work. The original was large (for me) three feet square. It took several months to do the entire project including sketches and everything. 

Was the album completed before you did the cover, or were you working on the cover while Michael was still recording for the album? 

Michael was still working on the album while I did the painting. I did get to hear some of it ahead of time and most of the song titles were given to me.

Are some of the song titles represented in the painting? 

If you look around you can find them.

If the album wasn’t completed when you began your work, did you have the name of the album and if so, was the name any inspiration to your work? 

Yes the Name was one thing that was decided. It did provide a starting point for the concept.

[A SHORT NOTE: So though Ryden didn’t hear all the songs he was given their titles and we can even find them incorporated into his painting. I can definitely see there “Why You Wanna Trip on Me”, “Black or White”, “Dangerous” and “Heal the World” as its central issue.]

Did Michael have any input in the design of the ‘Dangerous’ album cover and if so to what extent? 

Michael was open enough to just let me go for it on my own. He did have some specific additions to the painting after I was finished.

Really? Can you tell us what it was that he added? 

He wanted his friend McCauley added in the ride car at the bottom right. He wanted the 1998 pin on P.T. Barnum’s Tux. The half white/half black boy was also some thing Michael wanted added. They were a few more things also.

Can you tell us what the picture and it’s different symbols represent? For example: What does the “amusement ride” represent? Who is the “ring master” on top of the man in the tux, and what does the 7 represent on his hat? Who is represented by the bust that is half black and half white, and what does it mean? What about the animals? Why are the dog and the bird represented as king and queen? And what does the MJ on the dog’s crown represent? What does the “Birth of Venus” statue represent in this picture? 

Well these are all the questions that I am sure you are very anxious to hear explained. I feel that if a painting is explained away something is lost for the viewer. I like the sense of mystery to the symbolism and wouldn’t want that to get lost. It is an important part of the image to me. I am more interested in how other people interpret the image themselves.

There is definitely a sense of mystery to the symbolism! I do understand your not wanting that to be lost with an interpretation of the painting. Can you give the fans any ideas about what you were thinking when doing this? Give them some sense of direction toward the meaning? 

I am afraid they are on their own! (sorry!)

The entire picture is extremely impressive but, the thing that makes it most unique is the eyes. How did you decide to use only Michael’s eyes?

That was part of the original concept decided by Michael and the Art Director. That is what I began with. 

The full interview is here:http://www.freeforumzone.com/lofi/mARK-rYDEN/D645591.html

Well, this final piece is the key to the whole picture.

First of all we find that Michael provided Ryden only with the general concept and was open enough to let him work on his own. This explains those enigmatic symbols all over the painting – the artist gave full reign to his imagination, used some imagery from the ‘Leave me alone’ video (dogs, circus, animals, Elephant Man, etc.) and introduced some of his own signature elements to it.

So whatever mysterious symbols you see there you should approach Mark Ryden and not Michael Jackson for their interpretation – however Ryden’s reaction makes it clear that you won’t get the reply. All his artwork abides in symbols which he never explains, and everyone is free to interpret them the way they like. The painter even seems to like keeping people mystified by his riddles.

When the cover was ready and Michael finally saw it he did ask to add some small details. These included the image of McCauley Culkin emerging unscathed from his “amusement ride” through the sinister machinery in the center of the picture. We also see that the others who entered the ride didn’t manage it. After going through the machinery they turned into skeletons, and it is only young Michael and McCauley Culkin who more or less escaped. They look sad, but are at least alive. This seems to be an allusion to the entertainment industry which can crush people, especially children, and turn them into the mere ghosts of their former selves.

Another addition Michael made was putting a certain number on the lapel of the man in the tuxedo. And though the meaning of the number is unclear, now we can at least be sure that the man’s name is P.T.Barnum – so forget that “satanic Aleister Crowley” nonsense, please.

Dangerous album cover - P.T.Barnum

P.T.Barnum and the man on the Dangerous album cover

But who is P.T.Barnum? Oh, Barnum is a very interesting personality. Besides sitting for two terms in the Connecticut legislature 150 years ago, he also founded a popular Barnum & Bailey circus and the attraction called “Barnum’s American Museum”.

Wiki says that the museum had a changing series of live acts and curiosities, including albinos, giants, midgets, “fat boys”, jugglers, magicians, exotic women, a menagerie of animals in addition to the exhibits of stuffed species as well as “Feejee mermaid” with the head of a monkey and the tail of a fish.

This mermaid was a hoax of course, but Barnum justified his hoaxes by saying they were “advertisements to draw attention to the Museum”. Actually, Barnum’s words, “I don’t believe in duping the public, but I believe in first attracting and then pleasing them” should be placed as a motto under the title of every media outlet that also used gross lies and hoaxes regarding Michael Jackson for attracting the public to their papers and raising their ratings.

Barnum is one of the two central figures in the picture and it is clear that his image embodies the freak show Michael Jackson’s life was turned into.  So the monkey (Bubbles) at the top is of course a symbol of the way Michael was treated by the media and public – as a major attraction in the global circus they created for him, a sort of a bait used by its organizers to draw, entertain and please the audience and derive huge profits from the constant poking of their star with a curiosity stick (remember Barnum’s motto?)

The machinery in the center seems to point to the inner workings of the whole thing. This machinery is operating around the globe which is painted upside down – and the latter is actually very true considering the world’s current state of affairs and our present values, goals and ways.

When we look into this huge gape we see it as a purely industrial, business-like and no-nonsense world which doesn’t have a single natural element to it – no nature, no sky, no animals, no blade of grass. In fact, those living beings that enter this machinery expecting it to be an amusement ride return from it fully processed and with no signs of life as the emerging skeletons show it. No wonder that the river of produce that flows from this upside-down world contains only weapons, guns, rockets and death.

Dangerous album cover - centerpiece.JPG

And who is on the opposite side of this sinister machinery which is partially closed from view by entertainment and freak shows in P.T.Barnum’s style ?

And on the opposite side we see an innocent child supported by Michael’s hand (easily recognized by the tape on his fingers), who is holding the skull of a huge dragon in her little hands. This figure was meant to be the crucial one in Michael’s concept of the ‘Dangerous’ cover – Ryden explained that one of his sketches was even focused on this girl.

However Michael selected another variant where the child was placed opposite the symbolic circus represented here by P.T.Barnum, and the final picture began to look like it is talking of an alternative facing humans.

The innocence of a child as an alternative to worldly evil is the ideal Michael spoke of in half of his songs and all his interviews and public speeches, so we are more or less familiar with this concept. But why the dragon and why the skull?

Well, the dragon symbolizes the ills of human beings and society as a whole. And its skull symbolizes that these evils may be eventually defeated. The alternative to the freak show we have created for ourselves does exist and this is what Michael’s message to us is.

But what is the way to defeat the dragon? Regain your innocence and peel off the sheaves of stereotypes acquired in the crafty and cynical world of adults, return to the child you have once been and value what is really worth valuing – simple things in life and beauty of the world, a child’s inquisitiveness and eagerness to know more, a child’s open mind, freshness of perception and unawareness of the existence of prejudices, sincerity, love, peace and all the other good we associate with these little angels who are also called the flowers of life.

 Actually this is what Michael’s song ‘Heal the World’ in the Dangerous album is all about, and it is only when you understand Michael’s general concept that you also start realizing that despite all other great hits in the album, ‘Heal the World’ is its central piece and something which Michael wanted to address us with in the first place.

For those who don’t know or forgot it, here is what Michael used to say on the subject.

1993

  •  “What… what we need to learn, what we need to learn from children isn’t childish. Being with them connects us to the deeper wisdom of life which is ever present, and only asks to be lived. They know the solutions that lie waiting to be recognised within our own hearts.”
  •  “Children – this is my opinion – represent the purest, the quintessence of honesty, of love, of God. To me they are the God´s way of saying there is hope, there is such a thing as humanity. Be like children, be humble like them, be sweet, be innocent. It shows in the eyes, I always see it in the eyes. When you look in a child´s eyes you see just a pure innocence and it reminds me to be humble, to be sweet and to be really good.”
  • “I don´t mean to sound weird, but I really believe that children are God. I think that they are the purest form of the creation of God. When a child steps into a room I am totally changed. I feel their energy, their presence, and their spirit. I think we have to remember it is so easy for adults and parents to push them aside and not to pay attention to them. But I think they have so much to say and we don´t listen, we don´t feel. It´s almost hard to put it into words.”

(quoted by http://www.truemichaeljackson.com/on-children/)

In fact, Michael’s plea to learn from little children’s honesty, love and God’s ways is nothing new, at least to those people who call themselves Christians.

Michael’s views are the direct reflection of  Jesus’s words: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-3), and the only problem here is that almost no one is following this advice.

Amazing, but as soon as you realize the real message of the Dangerous cover, you immediately make another discovery and grasp the meaning of Michael’s look too, which as Ryden told us, was another indispensable element of his original concept.

Now that we know of Michael’s message to us, the look of his eyes suddenly changes and you realize with somewhat of a start that he is looking at you from behind this show, challenging and scrutinizing you, as if asking you a question:

“What choice will you make? Will you continue to take part in this circus and will you choose the other way? Will there be a time when all of it ends?”

As a final point let me add that when the ‘Dangerous’ album was initially released it came in a large box with a picture of Michael’s eyes on top of it, which then folded open to reveal the full picture we are discussing here. If this is not the best proof of what has been said here, then I don’t know what is.

Michael Jackson is looking at us and is waiting for an answer.

Dangerous album box set. First printing. USA

First printing of ‘Dangerous’, USA

38 Comments leave one →
  1. Rapunzal388 permalink
    August 26, 2016 7:19 am

    Hi, Helena. I’m Rapunzal388! I’m one of the loyal readers of your blog. I like the way you promote truth and justice.
    You’ve inspired me so much that I created my own blog and I call it:

    truthhealstheworld.blogspot.com

    Sounds familiar, isn’t it? Please visit and make sure you read all my posts especially “The Childlike Spirit is the Divine Truth!” and “Submission to God’s Will” and many more! Please tell your friends David Edwards, Lynande and others about my blog. Thank you!

    P. S.: I post new content only on Fridays, the spiritual day.

    Like

  2. Jan permalink
    June 14, 2016 7:15 am

    the UK edition of the National enquirer is calling Michael a p-le again it is a disgrace!

    Like

  3. des permalink
    June 13, 2016 7:51 am

    Today its the 13 jun 2016 a vindication day for a special human called MICHAEL JACKSON Eleven years ago he walked a free man from the court but this man who was fighting for LOVE PEACE UNITY and a better world for all of us HATE did not set him free HATE killed him.And today hate and terror struck again.Why,why is it that we destroyed everything that makes the world a better place.LOVE AND PEACE for all of us.

    Like

  4. June 11, 2016 5:35 pm

    The cover of The Dangerous album always struck me as a mask. Michael is behind this mask looking at you, me, us,As in susannerby´s post…..what choice will you make?

    Like

  5. June 6, 2016 6:59 pm

    Angie, I think it is high time you stopped this “monkey” merry-go-round here. It has been going on for too long in this blog.
    If you are dissatisfied with my answers you could turn to someone else and ask them.
    Or you could do your own research instead of constantly sending other people on errands, couldn’t you?

    I’ve looked up some of your earlier questions that kept me and others busy for days, if not weeks. Here are only some of your questions and other bits of our history together:

    • ‘Helena’, you said you doubt that MJ would tell his 11 year old daughter about intimate stories with women. So are you saying Paris is lying?

    • ‘Helena’, MJ himself never even mentioned that he got Lupus, why?

    • ‘Helena’, do you think MJ was infected with vitiligo!?

    • ‘Helena’, do you know what makeup MJ used to cover his vitiligo?

    • What did he use when he went swimming like that time he went to the Waterslide in 1984, and when he sweat on stage?

    • One more question, I was wondering why the many times I saw MJ perform in concert on videos while he was dripping sweat, why I never saw his make-up smear?

    • You’re calling me a troll because I wanted to know what makeup MJ wore? Why are you being so mean? What is so wrong about wanting to know what makeup MJ wore? How is that so wrong? Why don’t you look back on my comments, I did absolutely nothing to you. You’re attacking me for absolutely no reason, without cause. You or anyone else can’t pass judgment on me because of what you assume, and because you simply dislike me. I simply wanted you know what makeup MJ wore, what is so wrong about that? Tell me? What is you all’s problem? MJ was about love. All I can say people reap what they sow.

    • Many fans say MJ didn’t shower with Wade Robson, but why did Blanca Francia MJ’s former maid say she saw MJ and Wade showering together?

    • And what do you think of MJ having in his possession a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book?

    • ‘Helena’ you wrote: “Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?” Well, Helena, I don’t know what to think, I’m confused, really. What do you think it means? [My answer was: ‘Nothing’]

    To Susannerb:
    • I specifically addressed my questions to ‘Helena’ because this is her blog and she has knowledge regarding my questions. Why don’t you try to stop judging so much and bringing your frustration out on others, you’ll be better off that way. Also try to stay out of other people’s business.

    One more reply to Susannerb:
    • “I was speaking with ‘Helena’ the owner of this blog. You call me naïve, I’m not naïve, I’m very smart. If you don’t like my questions which wasn’t even addressed to you, it’s best you mind your on business.”

    In reply to Lynande51:
    • How could you say I did not come here for answers, I did come here for answers. And why are you butting in on my conversations, I asked you nothing. My questions were for ‘Helena’, not you. Please don’t respond to me if I’m not even speaking with you”-

    A couple of conversations with me:

    • Helena, if you wanted to removed that ugly word, as you call it, lol, with all due respect, no problem. I did not know that that word bothered you. And please don’t say “I’m taking you as a fool”. How would I know that that word bothered you, I can’t read your mind, neither have you told me not to use it until now.
    • Angie, the word “erection” is not ugly in itself, but it is surely not for this blog, and when you repeat things like “rubbing” “erected” “penis” several times in one sentence even in the negative form, it gets firmly associated with the person we are talking about here.

    • “Helena, I don’t agree with you, when you say MJ’s genitals rubbed against Wade Robson and Brett Barnes.”
    • Angie, I never said it, so please don’t twist my words. What I also don’t agree with is the game you are playing here.”

    Your complaints:

    • “As you can see very clearly how mean some of these people are to me, and how I did absolutely nothing to them. Just look at all our comments here, and you can clearly see how mean and rude these people are. I guess they don’t want us to ask questions and try to understand clearly of what happened to MJ. Even school allow questions, it’s about learning and understanding. Some of these people take their frustrations out on others.”

    To stop the above silliness and provocations I tried to ban you several times. But it turned out that you have at least seven or more IP addresses, and once I ban one or two, you arrive again from a new IP address.

    This kind of behavior is typical of a troll. So hereby I am making one more attempt of a ban.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. June 6, 2016 4:12 pm

    But how is it determined that they treated him like a monkey? Couldn’t he have be treated like a dog or any other animal? I don’t get it. It sounds like they say he was treated like a monkey referring to racism as seeing blacks as monkeys.

    And about the ‘Dangerous’ album, if placing a crowned monkey at the top of MJ’s head means he was treated like a monkey, why did MJ agree to this when he could have been treated like a dog or some other animal, why the monkey, knowing that seeing blacks as monkeys is racist?

    Like

  7. June 6, 2016 3:18 pm

    Gosh you guys are insane, and a very bad judger. You call me a troll based on how many times I used the word “monkey” in my post, are you kidding? I never thought that it had a certain meaning if a word is used more than once in a paragraph, etc., thanks for the knowledge, lol.

    I didn’t know a word have to have a limit to it. Truly, you all are very crazy, my gosh. You all have the mindset of the media I believe. So is that what the media does, use words more than once to try to make a certain meaning out of it? Gosh you guys take things way too far.

    I ask you questions of concern about Michael Jackson, whom I love very much, and you judge me for no reason calling me a hater, and a troll because you dislike and can’t handle my questions, who how crazy are you guys?

    You can’t possibly be a normal, true fans, bashing other fans. A true normal fan has unity, understanding, and love, unlike you. You remind me very much of this other person “Bonnie”, she has the same nasty ways just like you guys. Who knows, you may be the same person.

    Just know, that what you do to me will come back on you. Mark my word. You reap what you sow.

    Like

  8. susannerb permalink*
    June 6, 2016 1:12 pm

    Helena, you’re perfectly right. It’s a good point to make an example of Angie’s method to smear Michael without formally smearing him by using a certain word repeatedly in connection with his name. You can see it in her comment of 2:16 in which she used the word “monkey” 13 times.

    It’s definitely a method to distract from the essence of the post. It’s a good example, though, for the readers to see how trolls disguised as fans are infiltrating us and don’t stop trying although we have long unmasked them. It wouldn’t even surprise me if “Angie” was here under different identities.

    The method also includes that at one point the troll turns the tables and accuses us of putting Michael in a bad light. Well, most times it’s relatively easy on a blog to recognize trolls, but it’s not so easy on social media where trolls can involve fans in discussions and create a lot of confusion and uncertainty. So I think it’s good we can use this example here to draw attention to this problem and make fans aware of the methods of anti-fans who disguise as fans and smear Michael by bringing up “matters of concern” which are in no way existing.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. June 5, 2016 7:01 pm

    And why did MJ feel that he was being treated like a monkey? Why not a dog or some other animal?

    Seeing yourself as a monkey is in regard to racism, which is not good at all.

    Like

  10. June 5, 2016 6:51 pm

    You said:

    ” so if Michael showed to the public that he understood the game people were playing with him, it is okay with me. It may be a very painful message, but it was meant to be that way.

    He was asking for them to stop. However it looks like they never will”.

    Well, the public such as his many fans didn’t see him this way, only the media, and maybe you see him that way with your indirect hateful post, saying that seeing MJ as a monkey will never stop, what kind of an are you?

    And it may be okay with you for MJ to accept that he is a monkey by placing a crowned monkey on top of his head, but I don’t. This is very bad.

    Like

  11. June 5, 2016 4:57 pm

    “I hope that your garden flourishes for you and brings a little hope & cheer to your life” – Helen-Marie

    Yes, the garden helps a lot to cope with our present situation and regain some peace of mind amid this theater of the absurd. So now I have to divide myself between two focal points – Michael and the healing powers of nature and flowers. By now more than 80 rose bushes have been planted (among many other things) and 50 more are planned for autumn. In case something comes of it I will post some photos here. Sorry for the off topic, but I really need it!

    In fact I perfectly understand why Michael also went into a sort of a self-exile and how the beauty of Neverland was healing him.

    Like

  12. June 5, 2016 4:38 pm

    “Paris refers to St. Michael, 29th of september is his day.” – katrina22

    Katrina22, certainly not only because of that. But the date itself explains very well how Michael got his name. It must have been on Katherine’s insistence.
    And yes, St.Michael is the Archangel. Wiki says about St.Michael:

    “Michaelmas /ˈmɪkəlməs/, the feast of Saint Michael the Archangel is a day in the Western Christian liturgical year that occurs on 29 September. In Christianity, the Archangel Michael is the greatest of all the Archangels and is honored for defeating Satan in the war in heaven. He is one of the principal angelic warriors, seen as a protector against the dark of night, and the administrator of cosmic intelligence.”

    Like

  13. June 5, 2016 4:28 pm

    “Your analysis of the Dangerous Album is well researched and analysed and I would say it represents a fairly accurate account of how the album cover was conceptualised. Thank you for the link to the artist, it was not something that I had cared to research before, as to me the cover had read like a story of Michael’s life at that time and there was no need to question my interpretation.”- Helen-Marie

    Helen-Marie, yes, for most of Michael’s supporters the meaning of that paining is perfectly clear, however if you look at what others are writing about it your hair will stand on end – it is “satanic”, “masonic”, “he is a devil-worshiper”, whatnot… People talk about everything except Michael’s real message to us. Everyone focuses on the details, while the details were introduced by Ryden, and not Michael.

    Another abhorrent thing is the customary bias against Jackson. What Michael was ridiculed for is adored in Ryden’s case, so what is perfectly okay for one artist is out of the question for another – and this double standard is simply mind-blowing.

    Below are some excerpts from another Ryden’s interview providing some insight into his creative process. Imagine the media reaction if Michael had said half of it.

    PURE Magazine
    “The Meat Alchemist”
    By Noko
    No. 006, Vol One, 2001

    Ryden’s paintings have such an intensely consistent portfolio of personal iconography that you could virtually write a Rule-book or Users’ Guide on it. They are filled with dewy-eyed dream children with engorged heads, in a strange and empowering limbo between absolute innocence and world-weariness; a Pandora’s box of toys of both now and bygone ages, benign beasts both real and mythical: Abe Lincoln, Hollywood actors, rock stars, spaceships, ancient medical equipment, Colonel Sanders and raw meat.

    The subjects of his paintings exist in perfect out-of-proportion half-remembered Lewis Carroll playrooms or primordial prehistoric landscapes littered with the exotic symbols tied to Alchemy, freemasonry, the mystic Orient and the everyday imprint of TV advertising. The thing that somehow ties these seemingly disparate images together, is simply the paint. Ryden’s touch sings with an even-handed celebration of Art history from High to Low, Ingres to Margaret Keane, Redon to Rivera, 40’s wildlife illustrators to 60’s Psychedelia. Ryden has claimed that it is in fact not he who paints these paintings, but a magic monkey who comes to visit him late at night.

    PURE Magazine: One of your most famous images is undoubtedly Michael Jackson’s “Dangerous” LP sleeve artwork – tell us something we don’t know about the King of Pop.
    Ryden: I suppose the thing most people don’t know, and what surprised me, was how “normal” Michael Jackson was in person. His public image is so strange I did not know what to expect but when I met with him we had a very typical and relaxed conversation. We had many common interests we talked about. Maybe I am just a freak also.

    PURE Magazine: My life was changed when I bought your “Uncle Black” (1997). I absolutely love it to pieces. Say a few words about it.
    RYDEN: I don’t like to totally explain away the content of any particular painting. A very important part of the paintings for me is the sense of mystery in the symbolism. I think something is lost when that unknown quality is taken away. That is why I like to use Alchemy symbols, Japanese characters, Russian writing, and Latin phrases. It is more important how they ‘feel” in the painting rather than what they actually mean I suppose this is lost on those who understand these various writings, but for most it is not.

    PURE Magazine: When you actually start with the canvas, do you have a pretty solid idea of how the final painting will look or is there any extemporisation going on as it unfolds?
    Ryden: My basic process is to borrow from a multitude of sources when assembling an image. I use figures from classical paintings, faces from magazines, graphics from old ephemera. I have stacks of books and clippings that will all go into a single painting. One dilemma I face in my work is to reconcile the contradiction between my very controlled methodical painting style, and kind of spontaneous subconscious content. So I allow myself to change things quite a bit at any moment as I go along.

    PURE Magazine: Childhood and The Unconscious are pivotal in your work – have you ever fancied psychoanalysis? – or would that “the winged life destroy”‘?
    Ryden: I really don’t want to know the psychological reasons why I paint certain things. That would kill the process. Too much analysis can be the death of creativity.

    PURE Magazine: Tell me something that is PURE Ryden.
    Ryden: A taxidermied monkey, in a dusty glass case at a small museum on the outskirts of some foreign town that you could swear just moved its eyes.

    http://www.markryden.com/press/archive/pure-2001/index.html

    P.S. A special note for dear Angie. Monkeys seem to be one of Ryden’s central motifs, ranging from a “magic monkey that comes to visit him at night” to “a taxidermied monkey in a dusty glass case which just moved its eyes”.

    Like

  14. June 5, 2016 4:12 pm

    Paris refers to St. Michael, 29th of september is his day.I don´t know if he is also an archangel. This Mark Ryden must take his inspiration from Hieronymus Bosh. he at least had a sense of a consistent theme..It is hard for modern artists as they try hard to outdo each other..Michaels eyes are sincere in the midst of all the mesh.

    Like

  15. June 5, 2016 3:12 pm

    “And this is why I am concerned and I want to know the truth of the matter” – Angie

    Dear Angie, if you are so concerned and want to know the truth of the matter please ask Mark Ryden about it. I wish you every success in getting an answer.

    To me it is perfectly clear that the media (and the public) did see Michael as a circus monkey, and heavily mistreated and exploited him as if he were no human, so if Michael showed to the public that he understood the game people were playing with him, it is okay with me. It may be a very painful message, but it was meant to be that way.

    He was asking for them to stop. However it looks like they never will.

    Like

  16. June 5, 2016 2:36 pm

    Wow, you are really a judger. Because I ask questions that is of concern of me I’m a troll and all these other weird crazy stuff you say I am?

    What you all are doing and saying about me really doesn’t make sense. I never heard of people like you who just go off judging others because they ask questions of concern.

    So what is? We are not suppose to ask questions of concern? Are we just suppose to deal with it and let it be?

    And if we do ask questions are we then a troll?

    You hate my questions and are frustrated by them because you can’t answer them, so you lash out at me out of frustration, and put the blame on me. This is exactly what this is all about, and I’m sure know this in your heart.

    Like

  17. June 5, 2016 2:16 pm

    Hello Helen. You said: “But we can equally suppose the opposite – that it was Michael who suggested a monkey as a symbol of a circus created around him and Ryden accepted it. SO WHAT OF IT? What does it matter who suggested it? So why your “concern”?”

    My concern is why did MJ want a monkey as a symbol of a circus around him whether it was MJ’s idea of Mark Ryden’s? Aren’t there other animals of the circus he could have used?

    My concern is that I get the impression sense MJ wanted a monkey placed on top of his head being crowned as a symbol of a circus instead of any other animal, gives me the impression that he may have saw himself as a monkey, which is really not good at all. This is what concerns me.

    They called MJ “J-cko” since 1987, which means “monkey”, so for MJ to have a monkey crowned placed on top of his head on his 1991 ‘Dangerous’ album cover gives me the impression that because they called him a monkey (J-cko) that he may have begin to see himself a monkey, thus wanting to have a monkey crowned on top of his head on the ‘Dangerous’ album as a symbolism that he is a monkey, which is very bad. Not good at all.

    And even if it was Mark Ryden’s idea to place a crowned monkey on top of MJ’s head as though MJ is a crowned monkey, why would MJ accept something like this?

    This is what concerns me. I can’t accept MJ considering himself as a monkey, I just can’t. And this is why I am concerned and I want to know the truth of the matter.

    Like

  18. June 5, 2016 1:45 pm

    “Guys, don’t get fooled by “Angie”. We know him/her for years now. He/she uses the same method again and again asking this kind of provocative questions, pretending to be an innocent fan who genuinely wishes to receive answers to “questions of concern”. But the person is no fan, he/she showed his/her true face often enough. His/her only intention is to involve us in pointless discussions and in the end to put Michael in a negative light. It’s enough to see his/her reaction when we unmask his/her untruthfulness.” – Susannerb

    Susanne, I fully agree. Let me also add that these “naive” questions have one goal in mind – distract from the main issue. Well, look at us – this person keeps us busy over one small detail of the Dangerous album cover instead of grasping its main meaning and getting Michael’s message!

    This is a textbook distraction method often used by tricksters to channel the discussion into a different direction and replace the main subject with something minor and insignificant. Well, you know what will come next … now we can expect the “naive” Angie to write here another dozen comments on how “significant” this detail is and so on and so forth, and this will go on forever.

    However there is one good point about this experience – I hope that readers who see everything with their own eyes, will learn from it and will recognize similar tricks the moment they emerge. Actually this is the only reason why I am still sustaining this pointless discussion.

    P.S. Now that I see our dear Angie making another of her comments, let me point to one more trick often used by these people – a method to smear Michael without formally smearing him.
    The method consists in the repetition of a certain word in association with Michael’s name. You remember that “p” word used by the media in every text about MJ, even if on the surface it looked positive towards him? That’s it.
    This method establishes a chain of associations between the person and the word they want to stick to him forever. So when you see someone use the word “monkey” three times in one sentence you know what it is.

    Like

  19. June 5, 2016 1:16 pm

    I’m just curious, though it was not MJ’s idea to have a monkey crowned on top of his head as representing that he’s a crowned monkey, why did he agree to it? Why did he allow it to be on his album cover?

    And notice the 2010 “Michael” album cover here http://soulculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MICHAEL-COVER.jpg has MJ being crowned just like the monkey being crowned on top of MJ’s head on the “Dangerous” album cover as shown here http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UOELqJfOSGw/ULPH5phpDRI/AAAAAAAAXds/hpnZSQF_fW0/s1600/496.jpg which says that some people know that the monkey placed on MJ’s head being crowned on the Dangerous album symbolically represents MJ being crowned as a monkey, which I really don’t not like at all.

    I hope I’m wrong, because I really don’t like the idea that MJ would accept an album cover of representing as being a crowned monkey. Not good at all.

    Like

  20. June 5, 2016 1:15 pm

    “a question that I am really concerned about”- Angie

    The problem is that I, for one, can’t understand why you are so “concerned” about this question.

    Michael suggested a concept for the painting – that of a sinister circus they turned his life into and of the upside down world in general, where wrong is considered correct and evil is thought of as good, and the artist elaborated on it.

    Let us suppose that it was Ryden who suggested a monkey at the top of the picture (he could have suggested a bunny, dog or whatever judging by his other artwork) and Michael accepted it. But we can equally suppose the opposite – that it was Michael who suggested a monkey as a symbol of a circus created around him and Ryden accepted it.

    SO WHAT OF IT? What does it matter who suggested it? So why your “concern”?

    Whichever way it was the general idea is perfectly clear – the things they did to Michael can well be described as “monkey business”. This expression is defined by the dictionary as “behavior that is not acceptable”, “dishonest, or meddlesome behavior or acts” and “dishonest tricks”.

    As to racist implications you are evidently alluding to, I see none here. It is no more “racist” than this example provided to us by the same dictionary: “The tax inspectors discovered that there had been some monkey business with the accounts”

    I hope this exhausts the subject and stops this monkey business going on again and again over nothing.

    Like

  21. June 5, 2016 12:55 pm

    You’re a judger, that’s all there is to it. I ask questions of concern and you say these things about me. You can’t find one thing I’ve ever said bad about MJ because I’ve never said any thing bad about him, because I am a fan that’s why.

    All I did was ask questions of concern and you get angry because it seems you can’t handle the questions I ask, so you get frustrated and blame me,and falsely accuse me of being a troll.

    Honestly, you make MJ fans look bad by judging and falsely accusing other fans simply because they ask questions of concern.

    Even MJ said “Never judge a person until you come one on one with them”, meaning asking them questions to find the truth, in which I do. I never come to conclusions, saying “this is that”, I always ask questions to find the truth of the matter. That’s what interviewers do, they ask questions, they never come to conclusions. You will never hear an interviewer saying “you are this or “you are that”, they will ask you questions, saying “Are you this?” or “Are you that?” to get down to the truth, in which I do. It’s all about trying to find the truth of the matter, not judging someone like you judge me. I’m sure you know this in your heart.

    Like

  22. Helen-Marie permalink
    June 5, 2016 7:19 am

    Hi Helena, lovely to hear from you. Your analysis of the Dangerous Album is well researched and analysed and I would say it represents a fairly accurate account of how the album cover was conceptualised. Thank you for the link to the artist, it was not something that I had cared to research before, as to me the cover had read like a story of Michael’s life at that time and there was no need to question my interpretation.

    As an artist, I am familiar with presence of the artists signature within a body of work. Mark Ryden portrayed his research well and I have no doubt that he was aware of the media circus that surrounded Michael at that time, as you can see it is clearly depicted. The fact that he portrayed it so accurately is a testament to its continued scrutiny.

    Those that were tuned in to Michael’s message at the time knew all too well what the symbolism meant and now that I have confirmation of Michael’s original concepts and additions being included I can see how it all came together. Genius and still debated 25 years on!

    Thank you for your continued efforts Helena and I hope that your garden flourishes for you and brings a little hope & cheer to your life xx

    Like

  23. susannerb permalink*
    June 5, 2016 3:20 am

    Guys, don’t get fooled by “Angie”. We know him/her for years now. He/she uses the same method again and again asking this kind of provocative questions, pretending to be an innocent fan who genuinely wishes to receive answers to “questions of concern”. But the person is no fan, he/she showed his/her true face often enough. His/her only intention is to involve us in pointless discussions and in the end to put Michael in a negative light. It’s enough to see his/her reaction when we unmask his/her untruthfulness.

    Like

  24. June 5, 2016 2:54 am

    I’m not pulling anyone’s leg, and I’m not making MJ look like a racist. Questioning something is not making someone look like a racist, coming to conclusions is making someone look like a racist. Never did I ever say he was this or that, I asked if this means this or that. Questioning is totally different from drawing conclusions which I know you know.

    I don’t know why some of you can’t handle questions so you go off on judging me just over a question that I am really concerned about. I really don’t understand some of you.

    Like

  25. des permalink
    June 5, 2016 2:15 am

    Hello Helena its nice to hear from you,miss you. My God i can’t believe how we analyzed everything and we try to make something out of nothing.Paris,that’s what she liked that’s what she did,who knows tomorrow she may do another tattoo completely different.Am confused with all these questions and how we meant to know and want to know everything when it comes to Michael,and now his children.That’s what she felt writing that’s what she wrote,does she have to give us an explanation?we are talking about his daughter here someone who will love him and fight for him for the rest of her life.Even if she say something that we don’t like about her father its okay she is aloud,its her father after all.Am wondering why dear Angie didnt ask Michael when he was alive.LOVE AND PEACE.

    Like

  26. ALT-Tampa permalink
    June 4, 2016 11:07 pm

    Angie, Come on now. Girl, let my leg go!! Please tell me you’re not trying to play me for a fool!! When you listen to the lyrics for “Monkey Business” it’s clear that Michael is using a colloquial expression or urban slang, that says something is rotten in Denmark, there are some shady dealings or actions going on here that goes against the norm. But then I’m sure you knew that already. I think it’s time to move on from trying to equate Michael to a negative and unfortunately racist image. As a fan of Michael’s, I know you know better. Let’s stop this merry-go-around that is being unnecessarily created. We all love Michael and we know what he stood for, love, peace and unity. Let’s try to promote that!!

    Like

  27. June 4, 2016 10:13 pm

    I agree, but MJ also wrote the song “Monkey Business” in 1989, which I hope that him being called J-acko did not give him the idea to make the song ‘Monkey Business’ due to people calling him J-acko which refers to monkey, in which they called him J-acko sense 1987.

    What do you think about MJ writing the song ‘Monkey Business’ in 1989 and people calling him J-acko which means monkey? Do you think that because they called him J-acko that he came up with the song ‘Monkey Business?

    Like

  28. June 4, 2016 9:55 pm

    I can’t believe how you Helena and ‘susannerb’ are judging me for no reason. Because I ask you questions of concern regarding MJ you call me a troll? Did I say something wrong? AAre questions of concern wrong?

    So I’m not allowed to ask you questions that concern me? I thought that this was a “Vindicating” site for MJ against tabloid rumors, and where MJ fans can find the truth about MJ and ask questions of concern if we are confused and don’t understand some of the things that surrounded MJ.

    I come here for answers and help, and this is the treatment I get, of being judged and mistreated, and insulted. I don’t know why you all are being so mean to me, it just doesn’t make sense.

    And I can’t understand some of the answers you gave me because you speak in a way that’s indirect. Then you ask me questions for the questions I asked you, such as this one:

    “Is it good for the artist to call the dog Jesus? And what do you think – whose idea was it to call the dog Jesus and portray it with a crown? Please answer my question. Thank you”. – Helena.

    Why can’t you just give me an specific answer? Why are you asking questions with my questions? I can’t believe the rudeness here.

    Also, you gave two different answers. First you said:

    “it is easy to imagine that even if it was Ryden’s idea, without Michael’s authorization he wouldn’t have put it on top and wouldn’t have crowned it”. – Helena

    What it seems like you are saying is that even though it wasn’t MJ’s idea to place the crowned monkey on his head he allowed it, so it’s just like he took part in it as well.

    Then you said:

    “As another variant of my answer here is a painting by Mark Ryden, called “The dog called Jesus”. Please note a crown on the dog’s head. Is it good for the artist to call the dog Jesus? And what do you think – whose idea was it to call the dog Jesus and portray it with a crown? Please answer my question. Thank you”. – Helena

    This answer suggests that you are saying it was Mark Ryden’s idea. If you say it’s Mark Ryden’s idea, then why did you suggest earlier that MJ authorized the monkey to be placed on his head as though he had part in it as well?

    You are suggesting two different answers. And the way you present them are not as clear where I had to have someone interpret it for me in order for me to clearly understand it.

    I don’t know why you gave me indirect answers instead of direct, specific answers. I don’t know why you are treating me this way. It’s really sad how you guys treat me for no reason 😦

    Like

  29. ALT-Tampa permalink
    June 4, 2016 9:53 pm

    Angie, perhaps I can shed a little light on a possible answer to your question. As an African-American woman and all speaking for all other African-Americans including Michael, we would NEVER, EVER, refer to ourselves as apes, chimpanzees or monkeys. That term has been used strictly by the majority population here in the US. A US news paper even ran a comic of a dead monkey and called it Obama, which caused a BIG hoopla!! Now as a fan of Michael’s you would certainly know that he detested the disgusting name created by a British tabloid j-cko, which they relished calling him. In his interview with Barbara Walters, he clearly stated that derogatory term was NOT his name, his name was Jackson. To understand why he detested that name, I looked it up, and it appears to have been attributed to a child’s stuffed Chimp toy. Also remember, Michael may not have had complete and total control over the final drawing. Think back on the title of his last studio album. He wanted it to be called “Unbreakable”, SONY decided to call it “Invincible”. As Helena has clearly stated Mark Ryden was given creative freedom with this painting. Perhaps he recognized the way the media viewed and tried to portrayed Michael and their many attempts to get the public to view Michael in the same manner. As Helena has said you can always ask the artist. Either way, I would bet my last dollar, no better yet, I will stake my life on the fact that Michael did not, and would not consider himself to be anything less than a man created in God’s image.

    Like

  30. June 4, 2016 6:15 pm

    “I suggest it’s enough answering pointless questions which are just meant to provoke.” – Susannerb

    Susanne, you are right. It is actually part of the same old circus which some people like to create around everything that concerns Michael Jackson. There is no stopping these people – “the show must go on”.

    All I will do in reply is posting another picture by Ryden which will prove once again that most of those “enigmatic elements” in the Dangerous cover were introduced by Ryden himself, as they are typical of his other artwork.

    What I mean is that it is ridiculous to attribute to Michael what was done by Ryden, and pointless to make high-brown conclusions about his alleged “transgressions” all the more so.

    This Ryden’s picture, for example, is called “Magic Circus” (2001). It has exactly the same elements as the Dangerous album cover – a crown (over a bunny’s head this time), the sign of an eye, some numbers, etc.

    It is incredible that what they mocked and trashed Michael for is perfectly okay for the pop-surrealist Ryden and no one finds fault with him for “rejecting the normal boundaries” and “transgressing societal norms” (which he is indeed doing). Instead, celebrities stand in line to be painted by the fashionable artist and even draw inspiration from him.

    Here is Katy Perry’s portrait painted by Ryden:

    And here is Lady Gaga’s meat dress inspired by Ryden’s “Meat Show”.

    Isn’t all of it indeed a vile circus? And will there ever be an end to it?

    Like

  31. June 4, 2016 5:59 pm

    Wow, why did you say this about me? What did I ever do for you to treat me this way? MJ fans are suppose to support each other and have unity, not treat each other badly for no reason at all, and judge one another.

    Because I asked questions that is of concern of me I’m a troll? I never made any judgments, they were all questions that I wanted to be answered, hoping for the best. I’m a MJ fan, not a hater. That’s what this site is for to show truth to fans that are confused about things said about MJ from the media, etc.

    You are very cold hearted. I asked Helena questions, not you. You know I’ve never done anything wrong but asked questions to find the truth hoping for the best regarding negative stuff said about MJ, etc., so I don’t know why you are treating me this way. How about if someone treated you this way, who would you feel.

    Isn’t this site a site about spreading the truth of the good of MJ and for fans to come here and find the truth?

    I’m really concerned about the false things said about MJ, etc., and came to Helena for help, so she could straighten this out and this is what I get?

    Do you think God wants us to judge? No.

    You can’t judge a person, especially without cause. Wow, I can’t believe how you are treating me 😦

    Like

  32. susannerb permalink*
    June 4, 2016 3:28 pm

    Helena, thanks for a great post that brings us back to the center of who Michael was – a messenger with ideas that could be of great help for our shattered world.

    Unfortunately some people still don’t get it and wish to keep the circus alive in which they want to see Michael – one of them our old troll Angie who again tries to force answers from you pretending naivety. It’s a pity you again have to deal with this kind of nonsense, so I suggest it’s enough answering pointless questions which are just meant to provoke.

    Let’s better go back to the essential questions in this post:

    “What choice will you make? Will you continue to take part in this circus or will you choose the other way? Will there be a time when all of it ends?”
    “Michael Jackson is looking at us and is waiting for an answer.”

    This is what we should think about!

    Like

  33. June 4, 2016 2:17 pm

    Helena you never answered my question, can you please answer my question on what you meant by saying “it is easy to imagine that even if it was Ryden’s idea, without Michael’s authorization he wouldn’t have put it on top and wouldn’t have crowned it”.

    So are you saying it was MJ’s idea to put the monkey on top and crowned on his head suggesting that he’s an monkey?

    Please answer my question Helena, thank you <3.

    Like

  34. June 4, 2016 12:57 pm

    Hello Helena. Honestly I’m not good at knowing about these paintings, that’s why I asked you for help in trying to figure it out. But I will take a guess.

    You said the painting “The dog called Jesus” is by Mark Ryden, and asked is it good for the artist to call the dog Jesus? Well, I don’t think it’s good for anyone to call anything Jesus besides Jesus himself.

    You also asked “And what do you think – whose idea was it to call the dog Jesus and portray it with a crown?” Well if the painting belongs to Mark Ryden, I guess it was Mark Ryden’s idea to call the dog Jesus and portray it with a crown. Am I correct or wrong?

    Like

  35. June 4, 2016 12:15 pm

    “Please answer my question Helena. Thank you” – Angie

    Let me try. If your house is not yellow and your fence is far from yellow, and you hate wearing yellow clothes, and never had yellow shoes, it doesn’t mean that the word yellow hasn’t successfully sunk into our heads.

    The same with your “monkey” in relation to Michael Jackson repeated a dozen times.

    As another variant of my answer here is a painting by Mark Ryden, called “The dog called Jesus”. Please note a crown on the dog’s head. Is it good for the artist to call the dog Jesus? And what do you think – whose idea was it to call the dog Jesus and portray it with a crown? Please answer my question. Thank you.

    Like

  36. June 4, 2016 11:42 am

    Hello Helen, but remember this question that I originally asked:

    “Also, when I searched for the meaning of MJ’s ‘Dangerous’ album cover, this is what one person said about some of the meanings on his ‘Dangerous’ cover:

    “At the top of the Album, there is a Monkey being crowned and MJ is well-known as the King of Pop. I don’t think MJ would have thought comparing himself to a Chimp was racist or insulting, he loved animals- maybe he was suggesting the TPTB saw him as a Monkey, THEIR monkey, the star of the Circus they started”. (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=205638&page=2) Why would MJ consider himself as a monkey or think others saw him as a monkey? This is not good at all. Please answer my question Helena. Thanks.”

    So it is a concern to me that MJ would see himself as a monkey, or see that the industry saw him as a monkey, and that’s why I wanted to know if it was MJ’s idea to have the monkey on top of his head crowned.

    You said: “it is easy to imagine that even if it was Ryden’s idea, without Michael’s authorization he wouldn’t have put it on top and wouldn’t have crowned it”.

    So are you saying it was MJ’s idea to put the monkey on top and crowned on his head suggesting that he’s an monkey?

    This is really not good for MJ to see himself as a monkey, or see others as seeing him as a monkey.

    And why would it not be completely Mark’s idea to crown the monkey and place it at the top? Mark also crowned the dog, etc.

    Please answer my question Helena. Thank you.

    Like

  37. June 4, 2016 11:25 am

    “do you think that putting the monkey crowned on top of MJ’s head was MJ’s or Mark Ryden’s idea?” – Angie

    I’m afraid that this matter is of no importance at all, so I suggest we focus on something else.

    However if you – for some reason – want to know, it is easy to imagine that even if it was Ryden’s idea, without Michael’s authorization he wouldn’t have put it on top and wouldn’t have crowned it.

    I hope that with all this “monkey business” you haven’t overlooked the main message of the Dangerous album cover. When people look into too much detail they fail to see the overall picture, and this is what happened in this case.

    Thank you for the question.

    Like

  38. June 4, 2016 7:09 am

    Thanks Helena for this information! I really appreciate it! Great work! But I do have a question, do you think that putting the monkey crowned on top of MJ’s head was MJ’s or Mark Ryden’s idea? I know it was MJ’s idea to have Macaulay added in the ride car at the bottom right, to add the 1998 pin on P.T. Barnum’s Tux, and to add half white/half black boy was also some thing Michael wanted added. But Mark Ryden also said “They were a few more things also” that MJ wanted added. Do you think MJ also added the monkey crowned on top of his head? I hope MJ was not the one who wanted the monkey crowned on top of his head, because it would be bad for him to see himself as a monkey, or see other people such as the media, etc. seeing him as a monkey. So do you know who’s idea it was to have the monkey crowned on top of MJ’s head? Thanks Helena.

    Like

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: