Skip to content

„Leaving Neverland“ – after the dust has settled: Fiction and propaganda

June 13, 2019

Meanwhile Dan Reed’s „Leaving Neverland“ has aired in many countries and the dust has settled, presenting a clearer picture of the so-called documentary. The discrepancies and obvious lies in the fiction film have become visible, though not spread everywhere in the media, especially in the US. Apparently it is still not admissible for the mainstream media to talk about the contradictions and implausibilities in the film and explain why not all accusers of sexual abuse have to be believed.

Recently Helena and I have written on a post at the same time, and interestingly we found out that we have included the same topics in it without talking to each other. It showed us that we clearly have the same things on our mind and blindly can complement each other. Helena’s latest post is so important that I decided to add a few things which will corroborate her post and support her statements, especially regarding the propaganda and consensual love issues.
And I do it today on Michael’s acquittal day because in this trial in 2005 his innocence was proven, and Wade Robson had testified for this acquittal.

Generally spoken, the mistakes, contradictions, inconsistencies, questions and lies in this film are so many that it is futile to list them here again. They are already documented very well. Helena explained in her posts why this film is a piece of fiction, and other MJ “truther” blogs and advocates have published posts or Twitter threads on the countless proven lies. Numerous videos on YT have documented very well why the film and their protagonists are not credible. Journalists like Mike Smallcombe and Charles Thomson (and here) did some very good interviews to explain what is wrong with the film, and John Ziegler became a strong advocate for the truth about this film and Michael Jackson in general. A lot of people (not only MJ fans) were not convinced by the “memories” of Robson and Safechuck or even changed their mind after watching Leaving Neverland and voiced their disbelief on Twitter or in YouTube videos.

A long list of credibility issues is given here, but even this is not complete (for example the relationship of Brandi Jackson with Wade Robson is not included).

A documentary that provides only one side of a story, especially when it is attacking and defaming, is per se already propaganda because it automatically suppresses one side and so makes viewers taking a position against this side.

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”

By promoting one side, “Leaving Neverland” does exactly this: the information in the film is used “to influence an audience and further an agenda”.

In his interview with the Rolling Stone Dan Reed made contradictory statements on how he came to make this film:

 Q: The Jackson Estate issued a statement that said your film was a character assassination. But you don’t really talk that much about Michael Jackson’s character. Can you go a little more into that decision?
A: This is not a story about Michael Jackson. It’s a story about child sexual abuse that happened to two families whose lives intersected with Jackson. The fact that the abuser is Michael Jackson gives the film a reach and a relevance that I welcome. But it’s a story of grooming and pedophilia. That could be the story of any predator who inserts himself into a family and gets them to trust him.
(…)
Q: When you introduced the screening, you mentioned how the idea for this documentary came out of a conversation with your producers at the British network Channel 4.
A: I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called Dispatches, which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, “What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?” I like to take a story that’s in the public sphere and go deeper into it to reveal the complexities of the truth. I specialize in “It’s complicated,” the antithesis of quick-fire news bites that are becoming more and more the currency of finding out about the world today. And this 4-hour film is the complete antithesis.
So Daniel said, “What about Michael Jackson? That’s a big story and no one really knows what happened.” I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.
Michael was Wade’s lover and his close friend, to whom he owed a great deal in terms of his career and his life. As he says in the film, there was absolutely no way on Earth that he was going to say anything that might put Michael in jail. Period. And that’s a big point that the film builds up to over three hours to make you understand what happened there and why he then changed his story.

The first “question” of Rolling Stone’s Stephen Garrett is not really a question because the answer is already given (like if often happens with biased journalists): “But you don’t really talk that much about Michael Jackson’s character” – even implying that the Jackson Estate’s statement of the film being a character assassination is completely wrong. So Dan Reed’s answer was predetermined that the film “is not a story about Michael Jackson.”

But when he was asked a following question, how the idea for this “documentary” emerged from a conversation with a producer, Reed clearly says that Daniel Pearl suggested to him to make a film about Michael Jackson because “that’s a big story and no one really knows what happened”.

So what is it? Reed ridicules himself with saying that the film is not about Michael Jackson. His answer proves he didn’t plan to produce a documentary on CSA, but on the “big, unresolved story” of Michael Jackson. He started with the idea of making a film about Jackson and the film became nothing else but an anti-Jackson propaganda film with actors slandering Michael Jackson in the gravest manner.

(Of course, in reality “Leaving Neverland” is not about Michael Jackson, because the person they accuse in the film has nothing in common with the true Michael Jackson, but they meant to talk about Michael Jackson and once more convict him in the court of public opinion.)

This never “could be the story of any predator” because then Reed could have looked for a real pedophile who was convicted by a court of law and put to jail. There are enough child predators in prisons, so he could have made a documentary about a real and proven case of “grooming and pedophilia” to tell his story. But Reed chose to present the highly dubious and unproven allegations of two perjurers to a worldwide audience, when he could have told the story of a proven case of a real criminal to inform on the CSA problem.
It had to be Michael Jackson – a man who was tried and acquitted on all counts in a legal proceeding today 14 years ago and is now accused without proof – because only his name sells – or because somebody had a particular agenda to “mute” Michael Jackson!

But the film is not only propaganda against Michael Jackson, in my opinion it is also propaganda for a certain kind of pedophilia.

As Helena’s explanations on “consensual love” are so important, I want to go into it again. For this reason, I want to repeat in this post what was not discussed extensively in the public, but what should be a major issue to be discussed about “Leaving Neverland”. I already wrote about it in the comment section some time ago and it was also mentioned among MJ advocates at other places.

I am talking about the interviews Dan Reed gave to various media outlets and the statements of him and Robson and Safechuck describing the alleged abuse as a “love affair”. I am really wondering why the “love affair” argumentation of the director and his actors doesn’t make more people think about whether 7 to 10 year old children are able to have this kind of erotic relationship with adults as described in Leaving Neverland and whether they have a concept of what erotic love means at that age.

Why do viewers and supporters of “Leaving Neverland” accept this “ideology” unchallenged and uncritically? Why don’t journalists ask the necessary questions?

As Stereo Williams said in his excellent post of March 13, 2019, in which he talked about the questions that gnawed at him after watching LN:

“But I found myself surprised that seemingly so few had any misgivings or questions about what they’d just watched.”

“Someone needs to be more thoughtful than that. Instead of making pronouncements, someone just needs to ask better questions. That’s what journalists do.”

The English language has just one word for various forms of love. It’s just the simple expression of “love”, which doesn’t differentiate between the various concepts of love. But many other languages, for example the old languages like Greek and Latin, use several words for the different forms of love, for example in ancient Greek:
“Storge” -love between relatives and family members
“Philia” – friendship or platonic love
“Agape” – divine or sacrificial love
“Eros” – romantic or sexual love
“Xenia” – love towards guests

The people of some nations have a wealth of appropriate terms used for various forms of love. They don’t have just one word to express their love they feel towards somebody. What a contrast to the simple term “love” which is so superficial and can conceal the proper meaning!

Perhaps this makes clear what it means to differentiate. If Wade Robson had to describe in Greek the love he felt as a kid for an adult, which expression would he have used as a kid? As an adult you can say anything, whether you mean it or not, but which concept of love would he have had as an innocent 7 year old kid and which term would he have used to describe it?

ReedNow let’s go back to the interviews Dan Reed did after the first airing of Leaving Neverland. This is what he said in an answer to interviewer Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times:

Q: Both Robson and Safechuck previously testified in court that Jackson never abused them, and now they say they lied because they have since come to terms with what was done to them. Were you skeptical of their stories going into this?
A: When Wade told me that he loved Michael, then everything suddenly crystallized and made sense. This is difficult to say, but he had a fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30-year-old man who happened to be the King of Pop. And because he enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and the sex was pleasant. I’m sorry, that’s just the reality.
Most people imagine the kid kind of being forced — that’s not what happened, and Wade makes that very, very clear. If you’re really going to understand what oftentimes child sexual abuse is like, you have to understand that the abuser creates an authentic relationship that if the person was aged 18 or older would be completely normal. The problem is that the child is 7, and a 7-year-old can’t make those decisions.
We have to face the fact that child sexual abuse isn’t a guy grabbing you in the dark and you scream and he runs off and you tell your mom. If this film can make certain ideas about sexual abuse current — if that can become part of the culture — then we’ve done a good job, because then people will be able to recognize symptoms and understand why Mark or Joe or whoever started drinking heavily in his early 30s and it turned out he had been abused by his schoolteacher.

Q: Why make this a four-hour docuseries?
A: The central thing you have to understand is that these children fell in love with Michael Jackson. Jackson wasn’t a kind of grab-and-grope pedophile — he was a romance, relationship pedophile. Wade started telling me how he had fallen in love with Jackson and how that love lasted for years — decades — and how that love motivated his loyalty to Jackson. And how that loyalty ended up requiring him to lie about what happened.
And also because the sexual abuse happened in the context of a loving relationship, it didn’t seem like abuse. It seemed like love.

Let’s repeat his words to make it very clear:
Reed said that Wade told him he “loved” Michael (which concept of love?) and that he suddenly understood and everything “made sense”. Wade allegedly “had a fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30-year-old man […] And because he enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and sex was pleasant.”
Then he says that Wade made very clear that he was not forced. This means the alleged sexual relationship with a 7-year-old boy was consensual.
And in the next paragraph Reed says that his film wants to “make certain ideas about sexual abuse current”, which could “become part of the culture”, which then would be “a good job because people will be able to recognize symptoms…”
In his next answer Reed says that it was a “loving relationship” which “didn’t seem like abuse, it seemed like love”.

And this is one of the questions that need to be asked: How could it seem like “love” if according to Robson’s lawsuit the first abuse allegedly happened on the second day he saw Jackson in the US? When is the period of grooming and falling in love then?

Add to this the fact that these two grown men claim they liked and were not forced having a homosexual relationship and having a male lover as kids, when they had girl-friends in their teens and grew up to be straight men married to women.

In the interview with the Rolling Stone Reed made similar statements:

Q: What really struck me was that Wade and James really were in love with Michael.
A: Yes. People assume that it’s, what we call in the UK, the guy in the “Dirty Mac,” the dirty raincoat, who comes and offers sweets, and then does something disgusting with you. It wasn’t like that. These are relationships that, if they had happened between consenting adults, would be entirely normal. Loving, nurturing, mentoring. There are many relationships between a slightly older person and a slightly younger person that are fine, that are not illegal and that don’t involve any abuse. These relationships were between an adult and, respectively, a 7-year-old and a 10-year-old child. But they were characterized by all the trappings of love.
And that’s one of the moments when I really hit the level of belief. Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films. And when Wade, and then James, said, “I loved Michael and Michael loved me and we were going to be together forever,” they spoke the way a loving adult speaks about their partner.

 (My note: A friend can say the very same without any sexual component to it, so again: which concept of love is it really? The boys may truly have felt this friendship kind of love – “Storge” or “Philia” – towards Michael, which they now as adults present as “Eros”.)

Q: Because he really thinks so. Even the kids would say, “We weren’t hurt. We were in love.”
A: Yeah. And that’s why Wade says, “I didn’t consider this to be abuse. I loved Michael and Michael loved me.” That persisted for many years, because that was embedded in his psyche when he was seven. And when we’re that age, we’re so malleable and we form our ideas of normality, right? So, for them, this was a normal, healthy thing. And it’s not until many years later — this is so typical of child sexual abuse — that that structure falls apart and they can no longer hold it together.

Dan Reed in all seriousness wants to make us believe that children at the age of 7 or 10 can understand the concept of a sexual relationship and can enjoy sexual acts like anal penetration and even regard this as “a normal healthy thing”?
We need more evaluation on this, but I highly doubt that scientific studies would support the idea that a 7-year-old boy enjoys and understands this kind of sexual acts with an adult, at least below the age of 12. I am aware there are different cases with different reactions of abused children, especially boys, and children don’t deal with abuse all in the same way, but, in general, all I have heard so far from children who were abused at that age is they experienced it as horrible and disgusting and are usually traumatized and confused. And if they remember it as adults they feel disgust!

What does Reed mean with his film making certain ideas about sexual abuse current? Is one of these ideas that small children can have “fulfilling sexual and emotional relationships” with adults? Is this a theory he wants to become part of the culture, like real pedophiles want to have this idea accepted?
He points to the fact that “a 7-year-old can’t make those decisions”, which is true, but according to him Wade made exactly this decision when he still today as an adult clearly says that he was not forced!

The big problem here is that Dan Reed’s sick conclusions are based on false stories, not on scientific studies or proven cases.

Crista_D3vshfZXsAA3gw_

Drawing by Crista Bilciu

I am going to be somewhat cynical now with the following questions, but please think about it in all honesty!
If Wade Robson and James Safechuck enjoyed the abuse, then why did they sue and why do they want compensation? For not suffering at all?
If sex can be so pleasant for children, then why do we need a legal ban of pedophilia? And why do we need specialized therapists for traumatized children after CSA? Then we could treat children like adults and only prosecute the abuser (or sexual partner) when he raped them and the sexual act was not consensual.
And if the relationship with their abuser was so pleasant, then why should victims start “drinking heavily in their 30ies”? It doesn’t make sense to me! It sounds as if they didn’t suffer as children during the abuse – so why then should they start to suffer as adults? Is it possible that abused children don’t suffer from this kind of abuse as long as they are kids, but only later when they are grown up?
When children enjoy the abuse (as long as they are “not forced” with violence) and don’t show signs of suffering or strange behavior, how can their parents recognize the abuse? According to Reed’s theory people will only “be able to recognize symptoms” when the victims are grown up – so there is no way of knowing when children are abused. Does Reed know what he talked about here?

Doesn’t it sound like Reed and his protagonists invent and propagate a whole new science or ideology – on a public level instead of a secret NAMBLA convention?

No – this is exactly what we always have heard from pedophiles and their lobby. THEY always were the ones who wanted to have pedophilia legalized because in their opinion children can have “fulfilling sexual relationships” and enjoy sexual acts with adults, thus making sexual acts with children consensual. It’s their “ideology”.
So the question follows for me: Whose interests represent Dan Reed and Robson and Safechuck with this film? It sounds like horror to me.
I think this ideology is something that should be fought against by everybody who wants to protect children. Claiming that children can have this kind of relationships with adults without being hurt is grist to the mill of the pedophile lobby and supports their ideas.

If any experts on CSA read this, please give us your opinion and field reports to answer these questions. We are highly interested in expert opinions.

Dan Reed and his actors have done a huge disservice to the protection of children from sexual abuse. If they say, children don’t necessarily suffer from abuse and abuse cannot be recognized, then how can they be protected and get the help they need? Instead of telling and repeating gross, salacious details of the abuse for hours, they could have made parents aware, with the help of experts, how to recognize abuse and which behavior in their children could be an indication for abuse. But in the whole film there was never any telling of suspicious behavior of the two boys, because they never wanted to be separated from Michael, they never showed signs of stress or keeping themselves away from Michael, their families didn’t realize anything, and their main outrage always was about being “replaced by other boys”. How does this help anybody, if they want to inform about CSA and help victims?

And how can a theory, even if true, be proven on the basis of false or dubious or at least unproven information based on accusations of only two people (the family members talking in the film also can only speak about what they were told by these two)?

False stories like these lead to false conclusions entirely, and if this happens intentionally, we call it propaganda, in this case propaganda of pedophile views.

They didn’t think of any real victims and they were not interested in the real problems of victims. All of this just happened because they wanted to sell a story about the most famous name on earth for their own benefit!

Crista_D4H_GtlW4AEb1gv

Thanks to Crista Bilciu for her apposite drawings

 

15 Comments leave one →
  1. June 14, 2019 4:49 pm

    Susanne, thank you for continuining with this subject. You struck the nail on the head when you said:

    “This never “could be the story of any predator” because then Reed could have looked for a real pedophile who was convicted by a court of law and put to jail. There are enough child predators in prisons, so he could have made a documentary about a real and proven case of “grooming and pedophilia” to tell his story. But Reed chose to present the highly dubious and unproven allegations of two perjurers to a worldwide audience, when he could have told the story of a proven case of a real criminal to inform on the CSA problem.
    It had to be Michael Jackson – a man who was tried and acquitted on all counts in a legal proceeding today 14 years ago and is now accused without proof”

    This should be carved in stone.

    Like

  2. June 15, 2019 4:45 pm

    Guys, Susanne has sent me a link to a very interesting new podcast episode of John Sigler talking with Kevin Lipsey. https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2019-06-09-1-kevin-lipsey
    Kevin Lipsey is a musician and minister in church, and sounds like a very measured man. He says he met Wade Robson and Dan Reed in the spring of 2018. He and 5 other guys of his band provided sound and music for them and were very well paid by Robson’s company “Jump” (so he does have a company and has money to pay others handsomely). The specifics of the situation is that both Reed and Robson were quite secretive about the reason why the band was there.
    Not knowing why they were there Kevin spoke with Robson about Michael Jackson, and Robson praised Michael and had nothing but positive things to say about him. Overall Robson looked like a cool guy to Kevin. But when the camera started rolling Robson turned into a different person, started talking in cryptic messages, “as a victim” and “as if playing a role”. At that moment none of it made sense to Kevin and he realized that he had been there for the production of “Leaving Neverland” only when the film was released.
    When John Siegler asked him to assess the possibility that Robson was sexually abused by MJ judging by what he saw and heard from Robson himself, Kevin said: “Zero. Absolute zero”.
    A very interesting podcast. I cannot even say how important every detail of it is.

    Like

  3. Des permalink
    June 17, 2019 12:19 am

    My dear friends,I have been very stressed and sick from everything that’s happening lately,sometimes I say its was better before when I didn’t have social media,but then it feels like am turning a blind eye to the truth and I don’t want that. I have watched one and half hour of LN and I felt disgusted I felt like a fool I felt like they are lying to my face ,I felt like I wanted to throw up,but at the same time I was thinking about other people whom don’t know these men and don’t have access to internet,what are they thinking now. I watch bold and beautiful, and many times I cry even when I watch the repeat , and knowing it’s not true and knowing what’s going to happen on the next episodes,now people who only know Michael the entertainer and watch these men and their families supporting them they gonna believe them.Some of my friends watched it and they did say that they’re confused but they also said his dead now what do they want let God judge him.But the younger generation I feel like they not shocked with the movie,these days they so informed about sex and they bodies from a very young age and with movies like that ,that you loved your abuser and you still have nothing against him you only want some millions because the law doesn’t support sexual abuse on children other ways your loved the life you had with your abuser,nothing is wrong with it that’s the message they give out. I hate it I honestly do and it’s nothing I can do. It has been some time now that I volunteer in an international charity and we work with different people ages races children and more,every time the pastor makes a speech it is exactly what Michael stood for,including children,now more than ever I realise that Michael followed the bible, and am not very religious not that I don’t believe but I don’t like it when the churches are so rich and children starving from hunger.About a month ago I saw a clip the Pope in an open carriage full of refugees children and he reminded me of Michael.When evil collates with God it will only be one winner and that’s God =truth and we and all of you out there you’re doing an amazing job standing up for the truth.Susanne mention (Filia)=friendship in her post ,in my culture filia sometimes it’s more important than love, and I believe you’re find solid friendships everywhere especially immigrants who leave their families behind and make friends their family,me too and my kids and millions of us,and that’s what Michael was to Robsons a friend, and to turn on him like that it’s sickening.How can the mothers go in front of a camera for the world to see and admit that you failed your child you were there every step of the way your in courage the friendship you pushed your children and your responsibilities to Michael and he was there for you to give you a hand you were the mothers your were there to protect them not to use them,if I was you in that situation and believed that my child has been abused I feel that I would have killed my self,but because you know it’s a lie they asked for help and your giving it to them.Money want make them and you happy money want take away the guilt of leaving the sick father of your children behind,money want take away your loneliness now that your older and children moved on with their own lives, and if your sick no money in the world will save you.Dont you have any pride,go and work for your life like most of us,didn’t you get enough out of him,go and pray for your soul now. I’m sorry but I feel for this man and his children and his family,what he went through from a little boy,work like a donkey ,and on top of work everything else ,never ends like scavengers .Thanks to people and his fans for standing up for justice. I have never had so much Michael Jackson in my life before,from I don’t think there is anything that I haven’t watched listen or read, and it’s the only thing that gives peace,we have to talk about Michael and his life and his innocence and the truth.Thank you again to every single one of you out there I go to your blogs, twitters and the links and I informed my self about allot of things.My love and respect to all of you.

    Like

  4. June 20, 2019 4:07 pm

    I’ve just watched this old documentary abour 2005 trial called “Why Michael Jackson Won” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q058VOUhGX0
    It’s very well done, very gripping, although in the end they kind of ruined it and left their audience with doubts. (and what a bitch this Gloria Allred is!)
    There’s an interesting moment from 30:07 when Wade Robson is shown some porn material and asked “what would you think of a man who had pictures like this”. Although WR defended MJ vehemently, he answered “Yes, it would bother me”. I think it’s a damning evidence he understood pretty well what sexuial abuse is, and that he never considered “what he had with Michael” as a love thing.
    But I have a question. I thought that was only hetero porn what MJ had. What could be the book they are talking about here in the film?

    Like

  5. Alex permalink
    June 23, 2019 10:54 pm

    That is not a good documentary. Paul Rodriguez tells a different story about the video of Gavin Arvizo. They didn’t believe it. https://youtu.be/RSht7eNpHSA
    The ‘gay’ book was “Man, A Sexual Study of Man. Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints.”. Wade Robson didn’t like the book because he obviously would never have sex with a man. Under cross examination he didn’t have a problem with the book in context of MJ’s art collection.

    Like

  6. Des permalink
    June 25, 2019 8:37 am

    Dear Helena,today I just want to thank you all for everything you do. I have the greatest respect for every single one of you. I love Michael and I always will.There was a time when I loved Michael the entertainer,and I still do,but now I love him more for whom he was,my inspiration.Thank you.

    Like

  7. susannerb permalink*
    June 25, 2019 10:42 am

    Des:
    “…you loved your abuser and you still have nothing against him you only want some millions because the law doesn’t support sexual abuse on children other ways your loved the life you had with your abuser, nothing is wrong with it that’s the message they give out.”

    This is very well said, Des! They just seem to sue MJ’s Estate for millions because the law prohibits CSA, not because they suffered from it (if it were true), because it’s obvious they loved the life with their alleged abuser at that time. Now, in reality, they hate Michael or his Estate, respectively, for being left out of his life, for feeling neglected, or for not being Michael Jackson themselves. Robson always wanted to be MJ himself. Greed and jealousy is their motive.
    Thank you for your very wise words and for being a very kind and lovely person caring so much for others.

    Thank you to everybody and all our readers who stayed with us through these 10 years (almost – because Helena created the blog in fall 2009), for the support and trust, even if we had times of silence. Today is a sad day, especially when media are mainly talking about how the LN fiction tarnished Michael’s legacy instead of celebrating it. But we know the truth and these disgusting liars will be lost and in the end won’t benefit from their lies. That’s for sure!
    As you said it, Des: “When evil collates with God it will only be one winner and that’s God =truth”

    Like

  8. June 27, 2019 4:03 pm

    “But the younger generation I feel like they not shocked with the movie, …with movies like that ,that you loved your abuser and you still have nothing against him you only want some millions because the law doesn’t support sexual abuse on children other ways your loved the life you had with your abuser,nothing is wrong with it that’s the message they give out. – Des”

    Des, this is what I was afraid of and this is the direct effect of all these people’s lies about MJ. Robson, Safechuck, Reed and Oprah are persuing their selfish immediate interests, but by doing so they are changing the social environment and spreading pro-pedophilia views.

    After listening to all this bullshit the younger generation will think that small children may “love” their abusers and will be not shocked by the idea. But first of all, this idea is FALSE (small children are actually revolted by the abuse) and secondly, the eventual no-shock public reaction is exactly the pro-pedophilia activists’ goal.

    This is a method to desensitize people to perversion by first over-exposing them to it, but when the initial shock wears off, the idea itself remains and begins to be discussed in a more quiet manner. Bit by bit people get used to it and may eventually accept – at least as a problem that needs a solution. And after that there will be only one step to its acceptance. All of it may happen very quickly if people allow these false ideas to spread.

    Actually, the pro-pedophilia activists groom the public this way!

    And it doesn’t matter whether they do it deliberately or by accident, without giving it a thought. If it is their intention, they are criminals, and if it is not – they are useful idiots or accomplices, which is no better. The proverb “The path to hell is paved with good intentions” is exactly about this situation.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. susannerb permalink*
    June 28, 2019 9:37 am

    Thank you, Helena, for explaining this again with the necessary clarity. You could express it much better than I could. This is exactly the dangerous influence of the film, and people don’t realize it. They don’t talk about it, they don’t think about it, they just swallow it.

    Like

  10. susannerb permalink*
    July 1, 2019 9:19 am

    And here we have an example! This is exactly what I was writing about: The pedophilia lobby jumps on Dan Reed’s statements supporting his ideology:

    Like

  11. louissy permalink
    July 7, 2019 8:33 am

    Thanks ❤️ for your site for your researches, u all saved my life when I found it I was alone new Mj fan who have only allegations but nothing more , no more information but than I found it, I read all what I could. Honestly I never believed in allegations what tortured me false info “that porn was found in Neverland” I tried to find truth but Medi only lied I even read FBI but didn’t find what can say me what going on, than I found your site and God how I was happy and really THANKS ❤️ FOR IT.

    Like

  12. August 8, 2019 1:36 am

    I would like to add here this thread of our fellow advocate Julia who explains exactly what we tried to emphasize in this post. This is what “Leaving Neverland” is all about, and it is the major problem with this film:

    Like

  13. Des permalink
    August 8, 2019 7:00 am

    I am so stressed with all this fantasy sex movie that it actually made me physically sick,how these people all of them can get away with it.What kind of a back side these nine ,ten years old had that they managed to have sex like newlyweds and they love it and their mums were there and noticed nothing,when children this age they can’t even wipe the bottoms properly.These two men have sons ,one day there going to watch this movie ,what are they going to say when they ask the question (how do you accuse someone for something that you’re loved doing) and it doesn’t matter how much they will try to explain its not gonna work,they have destroyed their lives and everyone else around them,even if they are making some money this will never go away for all of them .KARMA will get them,God is watching and an army of soldiers of love and truth.

    Like

  14. Michelle permalink
    September 20, 2019 2:55 am

    I have asked since day one where Dan Reed got his credentials as a CSA expert. A person can’t just sit and tell all this crap he has about CSA victims/ survivors and their behavior without have proper education, skills, training, and a hell of a lot of experience. I never heard a single interviewer, sorry I can’t call any of the journalist, regardless not a single person ever asked him that question. My guess is he googled some of it and then just put in whatever fit to mold his sick movie. I want someone to ask the main right on TV in front of the world. I want to hear where he earned at least his masters in this subject and again I say at least his masters and that’s pushing it for all the stuff he has said about CSA victims/survivors. Oh I would love to have had his computer right before, during, and after this lopsided, fictional POS.

    Like

  15. Battenburg permalink
    September 20, 2019 11:08 am

    Michelle

    Take ten minutes Googlng Dan Reed and you’ll see that the guy had a seriously weird upbringing in a household where pop culture and modernism was forbidden.

    For example:
    “Reed also revealed that, before he began the project around two years ago, he knew little about Jackson’s music career.

    “We didn’t have a TV when I was little – my Dad kind of banned it. We only got one when my parents divorced when I was 14, 15,” the now 54-year-old said.

    “By that time, I’d really missed out on a lot of popular culture. I didn’t listen to Michael Jackson until quite recently”

    Dan Reed, born in 1964. The age that I was when Moonwalker came out, is the same age Reed was when the Jackson 5 moved to Epic and became The Jacksons. They were huge. Michael already had 4 solo albums out, and was working toward the (ever so slightly successful) Off The Wall.
    How isolated and oppressive an upbringing must he have had to have reached his teenage years and somehow not known that Thriller existed?

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: