The ‘Leaving Neverland’ Fabrication Is Breeding A New Ideology

“Nothing binds you except your thoughts; nothing limits you except your fear;

and nothing controls you except your beliefs.”

Marianne Williamson

This post took much, much longer than expected (very sorry for that). When every new day uncovered more and more of Robson’s and Safechuck’s lies, but it still didn’t change anything, I will admit that it was somewhat disheartening to look for the truth.

In circumstances like these it felt like true facts are irrelevant, the feeling all too well known to me from other spheres of life, and it once again raised the question that constantly bothers me – what’s the point of telling people the truth if they prefer lies anyway? Is there a need for facts if all that matters is “who says what” and the impression it produces?

SAFECHUCK’S TRAIN STATION

Safechuck, for example, said that when he was a boy he allegedly “had sex” with MJ at many places at Neverland, including the second floor of the train station where it “happened every day”. The impression produced by his monotonous description of the alleged offense, his detached manner and a weird smile was indescribable:

SAFECHUCK: “At the train station, there’s a room upstairs, and we would have sex up there, too. It would happen every day. It sounds sick, but it’s kind of like when you’re first dating somebody, right, and you do a lot of it. (Chuckles.) So it was very much like that.

Now we know that every word in this story is fiction as the train station was built two years after the alleged relationship stopped, but when you say it to Oprah Winfrey she will answer you that the two years discrepancy is no problem – it doesn’t matter if “it was Wednesday or Thursday” as victims can simply forget.

Dan Reed, the author of the film, doesn’t care either that Safechuck’s claims are impossible and says that the error is simply in the year when the “abuse” ended.

Dan Reed

Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

— Dan Reed (@danreed1000) March 31, 2019

Jim Clemente, a former FBI expert was even enraged with journalist Mike Smallcombe who discovered the documents that the train station didn’t exist at the time of Safechuck’s sex fantasies, and tweeted him that his discovery didn’t undo the “facts” of the case and that the journalist should “wake up”.

Jim Clemente

Do U know what was there B4 the current train station was built?Do U know whether the abuse went on longer than he remembered?This doesn’t undo the facts of the case.Wake up.Just because U loved MJ’s work doesnt make him perfect.He “loved” boys, fell in love w/ them & abused them

Do U know what was there B4 the current train station was built?Do U know whether the abuse went on longer than he remembered?This doesn’t undo the facts of the case.Wake up.Just because U loved MJ’s work doesnt make him perfect.He “loved” boys, fell in love w/ them & abused them

— Jim Clemente (@JimClemente) March 31, 2019

 

So according to these experts the timeline doesn’t matter, the documents are no facts while the two guys’ fantasies are, and it is the people who tell the truth who should be ashamed and “wake up”.

In short everything is upside down here and you feel like you are in Alice in Wonderland.

And all this absurdity is revolving around the year which is a matter of principle in this case. According to Safechuck’s own lawsuit the alleged “sex” stopped in 1992 and any continuation of it would contradict their carefully constructed theory that MJ “loved only small boys” and replaced them with others as they reached puberty.

So the year 1992 had to be final and Safechuck had to be no older than 14 according to their allegations scenario.

“From 1988 when the sexual abuse first began through 1992, DOE 1 committed ongoing sexual abuse of me” (excerpt from Safechuck’s lawsuit)

“When I fully reached puberty, DOE 1 began spending his time with Brett instead of me, and then his sexual abuse of me stopped.” (excerpt from Safechuck’s lawsuit)

But in 1994/95 when the train station was opened Safechuck was already 16 or 17 years old, was tall enough to tower over Michael Jackson and his wife Lisa Marie Presley (he was seen holding an umbrella over them during a video shoot in Hungary), and since 1993 Michael didn’t even stay at Neverland because he lived with LMP in New York.

“I have not lived in California for several years, dating back to approximately 1993” (from Michael Jackson’s declaration)

So if you shift the story by two years (from Wednesday to Thursday in Oprah’s terminology) nothing will fit in and the whole theory will collapse like a house of cards. However for the zealous anti-Michael Jackson campaigners none of it matters. They simply pretend that this little unpleasantness doesn’t exist as apparently they want to believe the two liars and no facts can stand in their way and stop them in their dedication.

The situation is funny, disappointing and utterly disgusting.

It is disappointing because it is much too obvious that no one cares for the truth. Even a fraction of this craziness would be enough for any normal person to discard the whole thing as fiction. At least in the courtroom the jury would doubt the whole story if a witness was caught lying just once. However what’s good for the jury is no good for the media and advocates of the film. They will give you a multitude of “explanations” why we should believe the two liars, and will ignore all the evidence why we shouldn’t.

It is disgusting because the mainstream media doesn’t report any facts disproving the two guys’ lies and flouts its lack of journalistic integrity openly and even flagrantly, thus showing their deep disrespect for their audience and demonstrating their confidence that they can direct the public like a flock of sheep. For the sake of appearance they will imitate objectivity but their loud silence when the liars’ stories are disproven speaks for itself.

But the situation is also funny because the missing train station story reminds me of a soap-opera parody called “Soap dish” where Whoopi Goldberg, who plays the role of a film director, wants the scriptwriter to resurrect the main character of the serial despite his death in an earlier episode. The problem is a minor one – the man was decapitated and didn’t have a head. Actually, the film-makers’ dialog is not too different from Oprah/ Reed/Clemente’s reaction to the missing train station and total impossibility of Safechuck’s allegations.

Scriptwriter: Rod Randall is back from the dead? How dumb is this? The man was killed in an auto accident.

Director: So he wasn’t killed. He was maimed. We give him reconstructive surgery.

Scriptwriter: What are you talking about? The guy was decapitated. I looked it up. He was on his way to the Yukon in a pink convertible…to see his brother who was an ex-con named Francis…when a tractor-trailer came along and decapitated him. You know what that means. He doesn’t have a head! How am I supposed to write for a guy that doesn’t have a head?

Director: They froze the head, put it back on in a two-day operation. Use your imagination.

Scriptwriter: He doesn’t have a head!

Director: Never mind, never mind. I will work this out myself.

So the guy didn’t have a head, but they “worked it out” and in the next episode he was alive and kicking again. Same with Safechuck. The train station was simply not there, but they will still find a way. For example, they will tell you that in a book about Jackson his bodyguards mentioned the train station already in 1990: “Neverland’s visitors entered the ranch at its train station”.

The public will applaud the find, but no one will tell them that the bodyguards talked about an open train station which is located near the gate. This gazebo like platform was described by Michael’s sound engineer Brand Sundberg in an interview on this website. Here is an excerpt from it.

Brad: …there’s the security gate out by the road, and then there’s what he called the “ornate gate” inside … it had to have been a mile, or maybe even a mile and a half, from the first gate to the second.

Then there was a huge parking lot that was on the left-hand side of that gate. And they did that because when we had a lot of guests, most people were not allowed to take their cars or buses into the ranch itself. You would stop at that second gate and park there. And then you would generally walk through the ornate gate. People have seen all the pictures of the black ornate gate with the gold crest and everything. And so at that point, that’s where we would unload the buses. You know, there might be kids coming in from L.A. or Santa Barbara or someplace, or Make a Wish kids or different things. That was kind of the staging area. Then they would walk through that gate.

And that’s where the little train was waiting for them. So there was a small train station right next to the big gate… it’s smaller than a very, very small house – you know, like the size of a southern porch, maybe, or a very big gazebo. But this thing has a slate roof and architecture, and the railings and the pillars are just beautifully turned.

So at that point the guests would get on the train. … the train would, in essence, bypass the house. The house is kind of his private residence. But the train is going past the lake, and the swans, and the swan boat.

…You could walk to the main house, but I’m telling you – getting from one point at Neverland to another on foot, you were hoofing it! It was a good little walk to get from the ornate gate to the house.  …then from there, you can walk further to the left, and again, it’s going to be a hike, but you’re going to go past security and past the video library, and Michael had some memorabilia upstairs.  Then you keep going up the hill, and you’re coming up to the big train station. And people have seen pictures of that with the flower clock and the moving figurines. …That thing was gorgeous. You’d go in there, and that’s where the big train would go.”

So the bodyguards spoke about an open platform at the ranch entrance which certainly had no upper floor. And Safechuck’s story was about the central train station complete with a video and photos of its hall and stairs accompanying his woeful tale.

To once again prove the impossibility of Safechuck’s fantasies – neither in 1988 when the events allegedly began, nor in 1992 when they allegedly finished – Mike Smallcombe produced the photo made by a Getty photographer in August 1993, where you can see with your own eyes that the floral clock is there, but the train station is not.

Mike Smallcombe

This is a photo of the Neverland Ranch taken on August 25, 1993 by photographer Steven D Starr. On Getty. There is no train station, only a floral clock (top of image).

This is a photo of the Neverland Ranch taken on August 25, 1993 by photographer Steven D Starr. On Getty. There is no train station, only a floral clock (top of image). pic.twitter.com/2dwmt3DsgZ

— Mike Smallcombe (@mikesmallcombe1) April 9, 2019

Of course it was not there during the supposed period of Safechuck’s “abuse” and the liar simply didn’t know it when he was going over the map and was generating his sex fantasies – the two-storey train station was built years after the railway began functioning as its final touch and a symbol of Neverland.

You could expect this photo to settle the matter of Safechuck’s lies once and for all, however I hear that Dan Reed simply cut out from the film all inconvenient episodes and acts like nothing happened. The last time I heard about it the film was already one hour shorter with the most obvious lies removed and the rest presented as “correct”.

And this raises the question I started with – if people pretend not to notice this gigantic lie which is simply glaring in the eye, what’s the point of showing them much smaller lies told by Robson and Safechuck in their every sentence? If the media and public are capable of ignoring the elephant in the room and explain it by “trauma” and “memory lapse”, their case is hopeless and only some reconstructive surgery may indeed help.

The argument that “after so many years they can’t remember it all” doesn’t hold water because Safechuck’s and Robson’s problem is not in remembering things– their problem is in inventing things and substituting them for their real recollections of MJ.

ROBSON’S FANTASIES

Robson, for example, claims that on his first visit to Neverland in February 1989 he was left there alone with MJ while his family went to the Grand Canyon.

However his own mother derailed this story twice by testifying under oath that Wade went away together with them.

Not suspecting that one day it would be important she said that after their first weekend with MJ in 1989 the whole family including the kids left for the Grand Canyon. And out of the couple of times she ever left her son alone at Neverland the first time was not earlier than 1993.

We knew it all along from her testimony in 2005, but Mike Smallcombe also found her earlier 1993 deposition where she said the same.

Q. So I understand that you stayed, then, two different weekends at Neverland on that trip, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then in between, you and your kids and your husband and your parents all went on tourist trip to the Grand Canyon?

A. Yes.

Excerpt from Joy Robson’s deposition, 1993    https://twitter.com/mikesmallcombe1/status/1111992775673810944

However despite this rock solid evidence Robson performs in the film a half an hour long monologue describing how Michael allegedly cried and didn’t want to stay alone, and Robson didn’t want to leave him and this is why he stayed, and how the abuse happened every night during those five days, etc. And the audience listens to all of it with baited breath though the whole story is a 100% fabrication. And we have to listen to it too all the time knowing that Robson couldn’t “forget” it because you can’t forget and then recall something that didn’t happen.

Actually a lie should not necessarily be that big to prove that the two con artists are fantasizing. Even a microscopic lie may show that it isn’t a memory lapse but a well thought-out strategy and a staged performance.

I for one was greatly impressed by Robson’s story of their long drive to Neverland, also on their first visit in 1989, where he described how he and his sister were in Michael’s car while his parents and grandparents were following them in a separate car.

Robson: “Michael asked if me and my sister wanted to drive with him, and of course I did. And my parents and grandparents would follow behind. I remember him playing us some music, like some unreleased music. Just getting this, like, secret access, right, to him and to his world. As we were getting closer and closer to Neverland and, you know, Michael telling us, only about 15 more minutes or 10 more minutes, and just the excitement really building.”

Nothing caught my eye in this innocent narration until I reread his mother’s testimony at the 2005 trial and came across her own description of the same – and again, not suspecting that she was giving away a terrible secret, she mentioned in passing that on that first visit to Neverland she and her parents arrived there before Jackson. She said:

           3       A.  Well, actually, we arrived before Mr.

           4   Jackson, my parents and I.  And Mark Quindoy showed

           5   us through the house.

           6       Q.  Okay.

Michael came later, and even in the highly unlikely case the children were together with him, they were not alone and were accompanied by Robson’s father.  So at very least half of that story is a proven lie.

This lie about the two cars is small and even tiny, but why did Robson tell it? What was the point of inventing this detail, especially in case all of them arrived there before Jackson? I kept wondering about the seeming uselessness of it and why he spoke so long about it in the film. Tiny as it was this detail struck me no less than Safechuck’s whole missing train station and didn’t let go for some reason.

Could Robson forget it? Well, he certainly didn’t remember anything about their first visit to Neverland – he himself said that in his faxes to his mother and asked her to remind him what happened.

But forget he could not. This detail could be only invented and then added to the story for a purpose of its own.

What also struck me was how engrossed Robson was in describing the scene, as if he remembered every moment of it in its most vivid detail. But if he is capable of fantasizing so effortlessly about that drive, looking so genuine at that, doesn’t it mean that when he looks similarly genuine in other episodes he is acting too?

Eventually I did realize the big importance of that little fantasy and will share it in this post, however those who are unable to notice even elephant lies are requested not to bother – this analysis is only for those for whom the truth matters.

Michael’s detractors and the mainstream media openly demonstrated that they don’t need it. The media probably know the innocent truth anyway and certainly don’t want inconvenient facts from any of us. They’ve chosen a stance of openly showing their agenda against Jackson and are not even ashamed to act in accord with each other to suppress the truth.

And it doesn’t matter whether their reasons for suppressing it are the ratings, money, ignorance or conformism – what matters is that their anti-Michael agenda is too obvious and this time around they do not even make a secret of it. We are left only to pray that in other matters the media act in a less biased way, however the impact of their blatant manipulations around Jackson is so strong that it makes you suspect the worst elsewhere too.

WHAT IS IT?

Professor at an American university and an investigative journalist who writes under the pen name of Vivian Lee, thinks that this is a conspiracy against Jackson. She recently published a comprehensive two-part summary of the main events around the Dan Reed/Robson/Safechuck project, also covering the two cases of previous allegations against Michael Jackson, and came to the conclusion that all facts point to it being a huge multi-faceted scam.

The reason to think so is the number of so-called coincidences when the same people pop up again and again at different times and places around Jackson, too visible effort to do away with him and his legacy, the abundant evidence of media collusion and much, much more of it.

You are welcome to read her part 1 and part 2  to refresh some of those events in your memory and decide for yourself.

As regards conspiracy I don’t know (it is difficult for me to imagine all these people sit together and conspire against Jackson), but a scam it certainly is. Even in the past the media activity regarding Michael Jackson was not flawless to put it mildly, but their current pious respect for the two guys’ lies with no fact checking and no questioning is simply outrageous.

After all everyone can see that they say one thing in their lawsuits and another in the film, distort the timeline on every turn, contradict today what they said yesterday, and feel safe, confident and unembarrassed even when their fantasies are proven impossible. The absurdities around this case are so obvious that normally this kind of a crazy scenario would have flopped long time ago, however the media keeps pretending that everything is fine.

This type of thing is called mass propaganda and is only possible when some powerful players behind the project impose their agenda on the media and its readership. And this is a very dangerous sign because the media no longer does real journalism and anyone who has power may shape public opinion according to his whims and personal choices.

And please remember that today it is Michael Jackson and tomorrow it is everything else…

A ONE PERSON CONSPIRACY

However if this is indeed a conspiracy and despite other players also taking part, I see it as a conspiracy of just one person against Michael Jackson, supported by the media due to their servility, for the fun of it or fear of possible repercussions in case they don’t follow the proposed trend. The journalists’ and other actors’ participation in this campaign simply shows the magnitude of this person’s power and influence in setting the agenda and shaping public opinion.

My almost ten years of research has led me to believe that the whole thing is masterminded by David Geffen, who according to Michael himself sank his career (see this post for details), was apparently Michael’s implacable foe and is not known to give up his plans until his target is reached.

There are several posts on this subject, however the last straw was Geffen’s private screening of the Leaving Neverland film to Oprah on his yacht on the occasion of her birthday. Though Geffen never leaves his fingerprints, this time – quite uncharacteristically for him – his move was so open that it amounts to Geffen’s admission to orchestrating it. The peculiarity of it is that it looks like he doesn’t even mind the publicity, otherwise the event would have never been reported by the obedient press.

The motive why he flaunted his special interest in this campaign? It could be the vanity of triumphing over the legendary Michael Jackson (who can’t do anything about it now), the desire to show that his foes cannot rest in peace even after their death and a warning to others that the initiator of the project is not to be meddled with. And probably even a message to the media that they had better take the two guys’ tale at its face value and turn a blind eye to its flaws.

A dispassionate look at that private screening will tell you that only the author of the project could treat the top media influencer and her colleague to this kind of a film at a birthday party. No one but the author and initiator of it, because for all others this kind of entertaining their guests would be inconceivable.

Can you imagine Bill Gates inviting popular TV hosts to his yacht (if he had it) and showing them a 4-hour long heart-wrenching film about child sex abuse, say, by some clergy? No, you can’t, unless he was the initiator of the project and gathered the top media heads in order to launch its extensive public discussion. In all other cases a subject like that would be too unsuitable for any party and the idea why anyone would entertain his guests with a painful 4-hour story about sexually abused children would remain unclear.

Are there any other reasonable explanations for Geffen’s sudden whim other than those cited above? No, there aren’t.

And why didn’t he show Oprah the documentary about Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood morals in support of the current MeToo movement? From the point of view of Oprah’s show it would have been a no less interesting option – only imagine all those actresses come to her show to bare their souls and guarantee Oprah a whole new hit season.

However of all other entertainment in the world Geffen chose a monotonous movie about two guys who for 4 hours non-stop describe the alleged sex scenes, presenting no proof whatsoever. To me it is obvious that Geffen wanted Oprah’s impression of the credibility of their performance, her expert opinion on the quality of the job done and her assistance in its promotion.

And the impression produced by the film answered his every expectation – if Oprah is not pretending, it was too shocking and emotional for her not to believe it. Given the length of the film and Dan Reed’s reputation of a credible documentary filmmaker this reaction was probably unavoidable, however what’s really strange is that when the dust settled and many of those episodes were proven to be lies (for example, by witnesses like Brandi Jackson and even official documents), Oprah, Dan Reed and other “influencers” still refused to accept the truth.

The strange phenomenon of facing facts and still not believing them is actually what worries me most and not only in connection with Michael Jackson. I wonder, what has to be done to people so that they disbelieve facts even when they see them with their own eyes? And why does propaganda work even in the circumstances when it shouldn’t?

 “FACTS? NO THANKS, I’VE GOT IDEOLOGY”

The article by psychologist Gordon Hodson, Ph.D. says that this happens when people are biased by ideology.  You may think that ideology works only in political issues, but the way various people define it shows that ideology is simply a deep-rooted set of beliefs that can be formed about any subject at all. Here are just a few quotations.

“Ideology is “the imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence”.- Louis Althusser

“The function of ideology is to stabilize and perpetuate dominance through masking or illusion.” – Sally Haslanger

“Control the manner in which a man interprets his world, and you have gone a long way toward controlling his behavior.” ― Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority

“A [political] ideology is a very handy thing to have. It’s a real time-saver, because it tells you what you think about things you know nothing about.” – Hendrik Hertzberg

Imagined existence, imagined idea, masking or illusion, controlling the manner people interpret things and the handy function of ideology to tell you what to think without having to do your own research – all of it is absolutely pertinent to what is alleged about Jackson and propagated to us on every corner.

If propaganda is long and intense, and everyone (false victims, the media, so-called experts, etc.) constantly speak of “abuse” at the hands of the alleged perpetrator, the brainwashed public will always find a way to defy facts and look for some crooked “explanation” even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the story is a lie and all of it is just the illusion.

Gordon Hodson describes the amazing reaction of people to facts depending on their ideology/set of organized beliefs.

Facts? No Thanks, I’ve Got Ideology

The consequences of preferring existing (ideological) beliefs over facts

Posted Oct 17, 2013

Compared to many other animals, humans are incredibly intelligent. Moreover, we have collectively accrued masses of data and facts, to the extent that we now refer to our present period as the Age of Information. Surely this large body of facts play a central role in our decision making about the world, right?

Well, unfortunately not. In fact, we often eschew facts for ideology [ ] – an organized set of beliefs that help us to make sense of the world.

The author provides examples of opposite sets of beliefs on politics, sports and climate change and describes people’s reaction to newly uncovered facts depending on their ideology.

Those for whom the new facts confirm their earlier beliefs “will acknowledge these findings, perhaps even feeling that they “knew it all along” (even if they didn’t)”. Psychologists call it the hindsight bias.

This reaction is predictable, so there are no surprises here. But if the newly uncovered facts contradict people’s ideology their response is not that benign and explicable. Gordon Hodson says:

“Those opposing (these views) are not likely to objectively read such information and dispassionately change their viewpoints to fit this new information. Rather, when faced with evidence disconfirming deeply held beliefs, we often ignore the new information, “doubling down” on the original belief. In psychology, we call this belief perseverance. … we don’t just reinvest in the original belief; we often go on the attack, challenging the credibility of the source of the information or facts.”

Amazing. So when facts contradict the deeply-rooted set of beliefs (ideology), people’s convictions grow only stronger and they react by laughing at the facts and attacking those who uncovered them. Here is Gordon Hodson’s example from sports (yes, even in sports people also have ideology):

”There is a belief in basketball that if a player is “hot” (i.e., just successfully made a shot on the basket) he/she is more likely to successfully make the next shot, relative to other players on the team. Sounds compelling enough, right? But the data simply don’t back this up. As interesting as it is that people hold such false beliefs, it is even more interesting how people cling to their original belief in the hot hand after learning that it is not supported by the facts. I’ve experienced this in class, where basketball fans become even MORE committed to their belief in the hot hand, even after I show them statistics and clear-cut demonstrations disconfirming the notion. After the first scientific papers emerged on this topic, basketball coaches actively disparaged the researchers, claiming that the researchers were clueless and that the findings were meaningless.

Unfortunately, being drawn to ideology over facts is an all-to-present feature of human psychology. The good news is that becoming aware of such biases can be the first step to overcoming them.

The best defence is education (formal or informal), and the best approach to understanding the world is through open-mindedness and a hunger for facts (where possible).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201310/facts-no-thanks-i-ve-got-ideology

Like all others I have also formed a certain set of beliefs on the situation around Jackson and the above article confirmed what I realized long ago – the thirty years of media trashing of Michael Jackson were not accidental and have not been in vain. The campaign was driven by a certain strategy and has formed a public ideology of him as a “molester”. And when those who do their research present the innocent truth, people can even “double down” on their false set of beliefs because it is difficult for them to agree they were in the wrong for long 30 years.

The ridicule of Jackson actually started sometime in late 1980s, most probably for racial reasons, well before the crucial 1993 when it was deliberately turned into a witch-hunt and has never abated since then. The time and circumstances when the smear campaign started are also described in the post about Geffen, so anyone willing can get familiar with that.

All I can say now is congratulate you, guys – the example of the long-suffering Michael Jackson has given you firsthand experience of what ideology is like and how effective it can be even in the face of true facts.

Many of you are already victims of it and all of it thanks to the whim and strategy of some, and greed and indifference of others. First jokes, then ridicule, then false allegations and boosted fake news, and constant rehashing of the same old lies have indeed turned the dirty fantasies about MJ into a public ideology. And this explains why people may be reluctant to accept true facts about Michael Jackson– like any other ideology, theirs is also difficult to eradicate.

However when Oprah Winfrey and Dan Reed reject the truth, their responsibility for it is incomparably higher. Journalists are obliged to present true facts, remain unbiased, do fact-checking of every story they tell, and when they fail to do so and promote fake tales instead, they turn into the makers of false ideology and commit not just a mistake – they commit a crime.

If Oprah’s and Dan Reed’s lies are indeed deliberate, it is a crime against humanity. This is no exaggeration, as the promotion of lies by those who shape public opinion massively corrupts people’s minds and takes them away from the truth instead of opening their eyes to it. It is a spiritual murder which some ancient religions place next to a physical murder of a human being. People may not realize it but it is actually the crime of insulting the Holy Spirit which is said to be an unforgivable crime.

But if we give Oprah and Dan Reed the benefit of the doubt (very little though), in theory they may also be victims of some kind of ideology. In this case it is interesting to see how their views were also taken advantage of and how this chain of deceit was formed from its very inception.

OPRAH’S BELIEFS

Oprah explained her set of beliefs as follows:

11 Apr 2019

Oprah Winfrey discussed that “After Neverland” backlash on Wednesday’s “The Daily Show”. The media maven came under scrutiny for her one-off special in which she chatted with Michael Jackson accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Winfrey said that she’d done “217 shows trying to get people to understand that it’s not about one person, that it is about the pattern.” “People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on… and that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.”

30 Apr 2019

“I don’t regret it,” she says of her involvement with “Leaving Neverland”. “I saw it, and I was shaken by it. I wasn’t even shaken by the fact that it was Michael Jackson. I was shaken by the fact that [filmmaker] Dan Reed had done a really good job of showing the pattern, and for years, I had been trying to show people the pattern. I’d been trying to say, it’s not about the moment, it’s about the seduction. The first thing I said to Gayle when we watched it was, ‘Gayle, you’ve got to get those guys [on “CBS This Morning”].”

So for years Oprah believed that molestation is not a moment, but a process of seduction. And what shook her most in Dan Reed’s film was how clearly he presented this process and how much it confirmed her views. And in full accordance with the psychology science she needed no more proof and immediately ran a special to show her audience the pattern she always talked about.

Dan Reed did indeed show the pattern, but the problem is that in real life the pattern did not exist and he simply assisted the two liars in creating it. He changed the timeline, adjusting their fantasies to wrong dates, and edited the footage to compress the random and rare meetings with MJ into a much shorter time supposed to look as “grooming” of both children. This is how in Reed’s interpretation Christmas time came before autumn, Japan 1992 came before Paris 1991, occasional meetings always initiated by the parents turned into an intense and continuous relationship where Michael was the most interested party, and so on and so forth.

Oprah probably didn’t notice any of it, so impressing her was easy – she believed in a certain pattern and wanted a vivid illustration of it, so here came Dan Reed and gave it to her.

DAN REED’S PART

Now the question is why Dan Reed added his own share of lies to those already told by the two liars.

He makes it no secret that he is “a gun for hire”, so by definition does what he is told and handles the material he is given. He wrote the script, readjusted the dates to fit the required pattern, made numerous takes of one and the same episode to select the most convincing performance, removed anything that contradicted the two guys’ stories, and all this and much more was intentional and done to enhance the impact of the allegations.

However besides those deliberate distortions Dan Reed also has a certain ideology, and when he expresses it you understand that of all directors who could make a film about “consensual love” between an adult and a child Dan Reed was the ideal candidate.

Reed explained his beliefs in his 2010 interview in connection with the documentary “Terror in Mumbai” where he reconstructed the events that took place in India in 2008. During that terrorist attack 164 people were killed by 10 youngsters who followed their bosses’ instructions given to them over the phone. Surprisingly, these events made Dan Reed think about child molesters and their victims:

REED: Terror in Mumbai …it’s a kind of historic piece because we’ve never had the kind of material like to rival these phone calls. …You never heard the terrorist intimate conversations with their bosses….taken together with the other material I think it adds up to something unique not just an insight into the way the terrorists operate but also into the psychological relationship between the controllers and the gunmen. The controllers never shouted. There was never any hysteria. There was never even when the gunmen had been hit and were dying, they never raised their voices. There was complete calm. And I think that’s strange and significant. … you know I always kept thinking of children or youngsters who were groomed for abuse and the way the relationship is, we are told it’s not consensual but there’s a kind of normality that established itself between children, you know, young people who are groomed for abuse and the abusers. And there’s a sort of relationship that sets in and I kept being reminded of that.

Why would a young man like this let himself be sent to a certain death by this person sitting in an office miles and miles away? Why would they do that? The religious, the fanatical religious rhetoric wasn’t really there. There was something else. And these were people who had been groomed and psychologically shaped so that what they were doing had become normal.

Reed’s comparison of youngsters groomed to kill with children groomed for sex is extraordinary (though probably correct), but the fact that while making a film about terrorists he always kept thinking about sexually abused children, suggests that there is more to the story than he cares to reveal.

It is suggestive of his personal knowledge of the subject, and since these ideas plague him all the time it seems that his deepest trauma is that in his case it was consensual. So when everybody around rightfully says that an adult-child relationship cannot be consensual, he says that it can.

This follows from his talk about “the normality that established between young people who are groomed for the abuse and the abusers” as a certain maxim that doesn’t require proof. He seems to have no doubt that “there’s a sort of relationship that sets in” and is always “kept being reminded of that”.  In other words he knows what he is talking about and he cannot forget it.

This interview was nine years ago, in 2010, and since then Dan Reed has made at least two films about the same problem (“Leaving Neverland” and the highly controversial “Pedophile Hunter” film). So for him child sexual abuse is a recurrent theme and his constant return to it again suggests that Dan Reed may have gained the ugly experience of “normalcy of consensual sex” between an adult and a child in his teenage years.

Of course this is a supposition only, but it seems that the consensual aspect of it bothers him most, so to me his latest film looks like a partial autobiography where he intentionally (or unintentionally) structured the narration in a way to express his own beliefs, personal experience and possibly a deeply-rooted trauma.

Occasionally he even corrects the two guys so that they speak the way he wants them to. The film starts with a strange episode where Robson calls MJ an “abuser” and Dan Reed interrupts him and suggests “lover”, and Robson agrees with him with a somewhat bewildered look on his face as if he didn’t really mean it.

So Dan Reed was either instructed to convey the “consensual love” idea or jumped at the chance to express his own set of beliefs in this film (or both) …… and seeing what specific story was wanted of them, here came Robson and Safechuck and gave it to him.

With such a chain reaction you actually don’t need a conspiracy – the two liars gave Reed what he expected to hear, the filmmaker gave Oprah what she expected to hear and the public received what they expected to hear about Jackson as their deeply-rooted ideology about him had made them ready for it long time ago.

THE METHOD

From the moment when these two guys realized what story was expected of them, inventing the tale and its florid details was a matter of sheer technicality.

So you want consensual love? No problem, we will play up to you – especially since it is the only way to explain why Robson lied at the 2005 trial and how his so-called molestation came hand-in-hand with his praise for Michael Jackson.

What’s interesting is that initially Robson didn’t fully grasp the idea. The essential detail of the “consensual love” concept is that it is a process of seduction (as per Oprah) which requires “grooming” for months or possibly years.

But being not aware of how it really happens, Robson initially claimed  that the abuse started immediately upon his arrival at Neverland – on the second night of his stay there, so just after one day of associating with MJ (according to Robson’s lawsuit in 2013).

When Robson realized that this version didn’t fit the required pattern, he shifted the beginning of the “abuse” to the time when the family left the ranch for the Grand Canyon. This was also a lie as Robson left together with the others, but at the moment we are just following the way his lies evolved.

But even a couple of days added to the alleged grooming period were not enough to fit the pattern, hence the need to maximally extend it. And this is when Robson invented his long drive to Neverland in Michael’s car with the parents following suit. The idea was to show that the process of “grooming” started immediately – MJ allegedly wrapped up his recording session, separated the boy from his parents and “gave him access to his secret world” (according to Robson’s definition) by letting him listen to his unreleased music in his car. A special emphasis was made on “building the excitement” as they were approaching the ranch.

A wake-up note for those who fell under the spell of Robson’s story again – none of it happened. The family came first and Michael arrived later, most probably alone and after finishing his work at the recording studio.

You will say that this is a very small lie. Yes, the lie is small but the reason for it is big – the allegations required a prolonged period of “grooming” and Robson had to deliver, and this is why he invented that little story and was so engrossed in its description.

Actually we should be thankful to Robson for this episode because it clearly shows the method of his fabrication and proves that the allegations are an artificial construct.

First came the concept and only then the story was made up to fit it, with colorful details added later to emphasize the main idea. This is why the film is so different even from their lawsuits – it is a work of fiction and not a document, which is no problem though as only Michael Jackson’s supporters will bother to compare and no one listens to them anyway.

In fact, making all actors display one and the same idea required much preparation at its every stage.  First someone had to work out the basic concept that “they covered up for Jackson because it was consensual love”, then all stories had to be coordinated so that all participants kept to one ideological line, then the skeletal concept had to grow flesh and acquire spectacular sexual details, then it had to be performed in a maximally natural way and when the shooting was over Dan Reed rearranged all the dates to enhance the impact and remove anything that clashed with the original concept (for example, changing the “abuser” into “lover”).

No wonder the project took so long in the making. The interviews with Reed started in February 2017 and the film was released only in January 2019. Even feature films do not take that long to make.

And after all that people still think that it is just a “documentary”?

From Twitter:

– Did Reed start to film in February 2017? Is this confirmed?

– Yes. It was in the LATimes interview. “Upon learning of their complaints, Reed immediately reached out to the legal teams for the two men and expressed his interest in interviewing them for a documentary. Though the filmmaker felt “it was a real long shot,” the accusers agreed to participate. In February 2017, Reed flew to Hawaii to interview Robson, then talked to Safechuck in Ventura County.”

Yes. It was in the LATimes interview. pic.twitter.com/WDCSFxZabt

— Justice for The Falsely Accused (@JuliaBerkowitz1) April 7, 2019

Of course Dan Reed tells us that during those two years he did a “huge amount of corroboration” but the result is a complete failure anyway – either because he didn’t really try or selected only the materials that suited his ideology and preconceptions about Jackson.

NEW IDEOLOGY

And now comes the worst part of it.

No, it isn’t only in the ton of mud slung at Jackson for no reason, but the fact that the ideas promoted by well-wishers like Oprah and Dan Reed are extremely toxic for the health of the society.

The problem is that the concept of “consensual love” between an adult and a small child is false and exists only in the minds of sick perverts.

And those who repeat these ideas while promoting this fake documentary (supposedly for our common good) are actually propagating pedophilia views.

The views of pedophiles and not of their victims.

Inspired by the “Leaving Neverland” fabrication they present the problem the way real pedophiles see it – that small children may “like” sex and that a consensual sexual relationship with them is possible.

But there can be no such thing as a consensual love between an adult and a child, at least at an early age like 7 (Robson) and 10 (Safechuck). Older teenagers can possibly fall into the illusion of “love” depending on the circumstances and the seducing skills of the abuser, but for children of the age described by the two liars this kind of thing is inconceivable .

Much can be said to prove the point, but the message I received from a genuine victim of child sexual abuse will probably explain it best of all.

“Dan Reed continues to go on about how the boys ‘fell in love’ with MJ. They all claim that research in the area of sexual abuse proves that a victim can in fact fall in love with the abuser. That is true, unfortunately. However, they are making a big mistake that I have not seen anyone call out yet. Consider the fact that someone who is say 12 years old or up – or at least at the age where they would be capable of feeling romantic love for someone else, generally around the age of 12 is when that begins for most people. Therefore, if a young person is capable of feeling ‘love’ (romantic love, such as first boyfriend/girlfriend puppy love stage) then it is possible that they could be manipulated into falling in love with an abuser because they are already emotionally old enough to have those feelings even for someone their own age. However, Robson claims he started to fall in love right away.

That is not possible. A 7 year old does not understand ‘falling in love’ the way the ‘doc’ would have us believe. A 7 year old would have absolutely no concept of being able to respond to ‘this is how we show love’ (meaning the physical acts). If they wanted use that narrative, they should have had it happen later in the ‘relationship’, when the boys were around 12, that is the only time anyone could at least say, well, at 12 is when boys and girls do start to show interest in that way with their peers, so it is possible a predator could play on that natural evolution. But a 7 year old – it’s ridiculous. It defies any and all logic.

Safechuck also makes many comments about how they were lovers when he was 10 years old. Impossible that he would have felt that at that age. The alleged abuse for him started at 10 and he claims at the beginning it was like a honeymoon – that they ‘did it all the time’ like newlyweds? What ten year old has that frame of mind? Do two ten year olds who are boyfriend and girlfriend (in the cute, safe way) rush off to private places to constantly touch each other and have hand signals to each other so they know it’s time for sex? No. At most there’s some hand holding, maybe a few kisses. That’s about it for 10 years old. Yet we are supposed to believe that somehow these boys at these young ages were acting out in far more advanced expressions of romantic love and that they understood at that time they were ‘falling in love’?????

Safechuck says that when he was 10, Michael told him he was his first. Well, we know in the real world when someone says your my first it means they are a virgin and this is the first time I am expressing myself in a sexual way with another person in this manner. However, what pray tell did little 10 year old Safechuck understand MJ to mean when he said ‘you’re my first?” First what??? At ten years old he wouldn’t have a clue in hell what MJ was talking about. I think this part of the doc is being overlooked. It’s not getting the analysis that it should. They were too young to use that narrative of falling in love. They should have said that aspect didn’t start until they were 12+ when they would have naturally had those feelings starting even towards girls their own age.

I am a survivor of sexual abuse both from step-father and a high school teacher. I have done the police interviews, court proceedings social services – all of it. My step-father’s abuse was when I was between the ages of 6-12 years old. The high school teacher started at 14 to 16 years old. I had no ‘feelings of romantic love’ for the step-father. I didn’t even know what ‘romantic love’ was. However, I did develop romantic love for the high school teacher – why? Because I was at an age where I was old enough to have those feelings starting with people my own age. And so it was easier for the predator to play on that, and I did end up believing that I had romantic feelings for him. So, from my own experience, when I watched the doc and I heard both Safechuck and Robson claim those romantic feelings started so young, alarm bells went off (besides all the other alarm bells!!). It doesn’t make sense. They were too young to be able to feel that response. They could idolize MJ, be thrilled with attention, they could love all the fun at Neverland and going to amusement parks, and what not, however, they could not have been old enough to first of all understand and respond to this supposed romantic love that was building between them and MJ.”

I’m very sorry that the sender of this message had to go through so much pain, but am thankful to her for sharing the experience. Her conclusions are absolutely correct and you don’t need to consult learned pundits to make sure of it.  Just look at any child of age 7 – your son, daughter or grandchild – and you will realize that the consensual point of that theory is a delusion, a criminal delusion.

Children of that young age are the innocent little angels whose love for their friends, even if they are grown-up people, does not have a single shade of sexuality . They have no idea what sex is and will be frightened out of their wits if someone touches their private parts.

Any child victim will tell you that, but it will be enough to read this account of a genuine victim of sexual abuse (the poignant post by Linda-Raven Woods) to understand how a small child really feels about it. Her post will explain to you that the graphic acts described by the two liars will make the real child victim vomit instead of looking forward to keeping up this kind of “friendship” with the abuser.

Not to mention the fact that children never use the word “sex” when talking of their child experience even as grown-ups (unlike Safechuck who operates only in terms of “we had sex”). The vocabulary of genuine victims is that they were “playing a game”, “had a little secret” and this in addition to the fact that they avoid describing those activities in graphic detail at all costs.

The tragedy of what’s happening now is that the two bastards assisted by Dan Reed, who possibly had some kind of experience as a teenager, have introduced into public discourse the false idea of a possibility of sexual attraction at a very young age.

Their reasons are utterly selfish, practical and immediate – they simply want hundreds of millions of dollars from the MJ Estate.  Robson expressed his goal in a short but explicit way: “It’s time for me to get mine!” and initially asked for $1.5 billion.

Robson: “It’s time for me to get mine!” (an excerpt from his deposition 12.12.2016)

However this fabrication, which is simply a lucrative project for its main players, is being taken seriously by all others who are listening to this “love story” with horror and disgust, but are quickly acquiring the same beliefs and same ideology.

And the process goes even much faster when they hear iconic figures like Oprah say outrageous things like this one:

“If you’re 7 years old and someone is stroking your penis, it feels good. Even if you don’t have a name for what that is, it feels good,” she told the men and the audience. “That’s one of the reasons it’s so confusing for children. Everybody wants to believe it’s like sexual assault and you’re being thrown up against a wall and being raped, and I have said for years, if the abuser is any good, you won’t even know it’s happened”.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/leaving-neverland-oprah-michael-jackson.html

I had only one instance of this kind of experience and no amount of Oprah’s shows will convince me that a 6 or 7 year-old child may like it – sixty years later I still remember that horrible feeling. But the public, brainwashed by the two liars and the servile media, may indeed swallow the poisonous idea that young children may “feel good” and “be in love”, and all their further discussion of the problem will stem from this utterly wrong premise.

In fact, by repeating pedophilia views and imposing them on the public all these bastards are forming a new set of false beliefs, a new fake ideology, and if it is acquired by the society, people will see it as a revolting but real phenomenon and then rack their brains on how to cope with it.

So my congratulations to Robson, Safechuck, Reed and Oprah – you, in cooperation with the lackey media, are working for the cause of pedophilia and are breeding a new and monstrous ideology regarding children.

And all those who are lazy enough not to analyze this fabrication and choose to ignore the truth are actually complicit in creating this ideology, which may become a stepping stone to the unspeakable tragedy of accepting things which should never be accepted.

This is the dear price all of us can pay if people remain indifferent to lies and don’t want to know the truth thinking that “it is only about Jackson”.

No, it is not only about Jackson. It is about the future of your children. And surprisingly it is only Michael Jackson’s supporters who urge people to wake up to what is going on now.