Skip to content

The Schleiters remember Michael Jackson in AKTE documentary

June 26, 2020

The AKTE documentary about the Schleiter family and their friendship with Michael Jackson aired on German TV sometime in January this year, but its English version was made available to us only recently, thanks to AlfonsMeir who uploaded it here.

The Schleiter family

Many of us have probably not heard of the Schleiters except their emphatic “Enough is enough” letter in support of Michael Jackson as previously they never spoke to the press.

I encourage everyone to read the letter and watch the documentary as the latter is quite accurate in describing Michael Jackson’s tribulations beginning with 1993 (except the wrong age of the accuser and some minor details) and covers almost everything up to Martin Bashir’s film and La Toya’s various performances in this or that attire for and against her brother.

Anyone can watch the documentary themselves to form an opinion, but your impression will not be full if you don’t know what is insinuated about Anton Schleiter by Michael’s detractors.  In fact it is the comparison between these freaks’ innuendoes and the truth which is a real eye-opener here.

For example, a “MJandboys” site made a post about Anton Schleiter in November 2016 following the usual pattern – all attention is certainly on the boy who is called a “special friend” of MJ while the boy’s sister Franziska is certainly ignored and is totally non-existent for the writers. Here is a sample:

Michael Jackson and Anton Schleiter (1995-2006)

 “Whenever Michael Jackson toured the world, he used the possibility to make a new young male friend. Those boys are known to the public as special friends, but a few boys are simply overlooked. …Anton was one of the many boys whom Jackson befriended during the 1990s, but he never got the attention by the media that most of Jackson’s young friends receive, although he was very close friends with Jackson.

It was November 1995, when Michael Jackson performed at a German TV show called “Wetten dass…?”. MJ met 12-year-old Anton Schleiter backstage. Anton became a special friend of Jackson after meeting him and started to spend time with Jackson on a regular basis.”

And this is what the AKTE documentary tells us about the way the Schleiters befriended Michael Jackson:

02:55 Hamburg Niendorf, at the forest border there is an unremarkable one family house that made history almost 15 years ago (in 2006) because back then superstar Michael Jackson lived and slept for multiple weeks in this house. Here he spent carefree days with the Schleiter family including their children Franziska and Anton, today aged 34 and 36 (so in 2006 they were 20 and 22 years old respectively). Private videos remind them of an unforgettable time with their world-famous friend.

03:31 (Anton) “The personal time with Michael was – I mean when we just talked or played games – he was simply a great person and so loving/caring that you felt so comfortable…. Everything else became irrelevant. That’s just how it was. [It was like] coincidentally our best friend Michael was also the superstar Michael Jackson”.

 (Franziska) “The best time was actually when he came to our house. This was the best time.”

 (Anton) “This was so exciting and great as a kid, but later it was true friendship.”

Actually the Schleiters met Michael Jackson 25 years ago (in 1995, when Anton was 13 and Franziska was 11 respectively) and this is how Franziska describes the first time they met Michael Jackson:

04:27 (Franziska) “My father worked in the music industry and he had to go to “Wetten Dass…?” [1995] and Anton learned that Michael would also be there. So we as a family decided to go there too, like a family trip and to see Michael live.

We were also backstage and Anton and me had our tickets and we wanted to have an autograph. Our father said “Now or never”. I was so scared. But in the end I followed my father’s advice and we went to him and got an autograph”.

Back then we thought this would be the biggest thing that can ever happen that we met him and got an autograph. But then it appeared that he asked through his managers if we wanted to join him to Phantasialand [amusement park] the next day.  He invited us and we spent the day together. And this was such a wonderful day. We couldn’t believe it and said “Wow, we spent a day with Michael Jackson!” This was incredible.

Franziska and Anton are sitting in front of Michael Jackson, and MJ is sitting with two small girls (all screenshots are from the documentary)

And then we were so lucky that he even called us the day after and from this point on the friendship developed. This is somehow… I’m still stunned when I’m saying this.”

 05:49 (voiceover) We are with the family at the Niendorfer Gehege, a forest park in West Hamburg. Here they spent a lot of time with their famous friend.

06:02 (Anton) ‘When he was with us he really liked it that he could be undercover /incognito.

(Franziska) “Michael wanted to be solely with us, no bodyguards and they [the bodyguards] said “Are you crazy? There are many things that can happen to you”. But this was exactly what he wanted, escaping from everything, to be himself and being with us like a normal person, spending time as if there wasn’t this hectic around him”.

06:42 The Schleiters never wanted to comment on the private moments in public.

(Wolfgang, father): “The situation today is different – after the new accusations were made, which are so shabby, and he himself cannot speak anymore.

And personally, what hurts me most is that his children have to experience how their father is dragged through the mud. And that’s probably the time that we have to raise our hand. We usually avoided it also in the sense of Michael’s wish to keep it private and we gladly respected it, also posthumously. But now it is a different situation.  And I know that others also raise their hands to speak up for Jackson. I think it is a good thing that now there are also completely different voices coming and we gladly line up with them”.

In the meantime the “MJandboys” keep their own record of Anton Schleiter’s activities. 

“Jackson returned to Germany, because of the HIStory world tour and 14-year-old Anton became his constant companion throughout the whole country.

1997, Bremen: The teen was even seen disappearing into Jackson’s hotel, along with MJ.  In 1997, Jackson stayed about three weeks in Germany. Anton was alone with him for nearly a month, from which you can draw the conclusion that Jackson liked the kid. Their time together was very special to Jackson, they inspired him to write the romantic song “Speechless”.

Why didn’t it seem weird to anyone that Jackson was inspired by a 14-year-old boy to write Speechless?

The above is a myth while the AKTE documentary describes the true circumstances under which “Speechless” came into being:

1:23:54 Franziska and Anton show us exclusive videos, recorded in private moments with Michael Jackson, like a water balloon fight in the family’s garden.  Moments that they describe as the best in their lives. Therefore we were allowed to watch the videos, but not to show them publicly.   

(Reporter) “Is this Michael Jackson laughing?” (everyone laughs)

The Schleiters still feel so close to Michael Jackson that they want to protect their friendship with the superstar. The relationship was so close that Jackson dedicated a song to them after the water balloon fight: “Speechless”:

“Special thanks to Anton and Franziska… I love you with all my heart, Michael Jackson”.

1:24:53 (Anton) “We didn’t notice it, he just went upstairs to change his clothes because he was soaking wet. He was upstairs in his room for an hour and then he came downstairs and was all smiles that he had written a really great song. Because he was having the most fun he’s had in a long time”.

So the song wasn’t about the boy, but about the long-forgotten feeling of carefree happiness Michael experienced for the first time in several years amid much fun and much laugh with two other carefree water balloon fighters. Inspiration is like that – it may come at most unexpected moments in your life, like “Speechless” came to Michael Jackson and could remind him of a woman he loved, or more probably inspired him to a prayer to God:

Your love is magical, that’s how I feel
But I have not the words here to explain
Gone is the grace for expressions of passion
But there are worlds and worlds of ways to explain
To tell you how I feel

But I am speechless, speechless
That’s how you make me feel
Though I’m with you I am far away
And nothing is for real

When I’m with you I am lost for words
I don’t know what to say
My head’s spinning like a carousel
So silently I pray

Helpless and hopeless
That’s how I feel inside
Nothing’s real, but all is possible
If God is on my side

When I’m with you I am in the light where I cannot be found
It’s as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground

Speechless, speechless
That’s how you make me feel
Though I’m with you I am far away
And nothing is for real

I’ll go anywhere
And do anything
Just to touch your face
There’s no mountain high
I cannot climb
I’m humbled in your grace

Speechless, speechless
That’s how you make me feel
Though I’m with you I am lost for words
And nothing is for real

Speechless, speechless
That’s how you make me feel
(You’re always on my mind)
Though I’m with you I am lost for words
And nothing is for real
Speechless

Your love is magical, that’s how I feel
But in your presence I am lost for words
Words like—like “I love you”

“Your love is magical – I am with you and I am far away – helpless and hopeless, but all is possible if God is on my side – when I’m with you I don’t know what to say – You are always on my mind – I’m humbled in your grace” …..

Gone is the time when Michael could pray with the words of passion – now he prays silently, having no words to express his feelings in such moments of sheer happiness when all he feels is that he is standing in the light .

If anything the song could be the expression of Michael’s gratitude to God that even in the most torturous years of his life he is not abandoned by the Almighty – who once again reminded him of His presence by giving him a chance to feel like a happy, cheerful and carefree child in the company of two kids.

Or it could be a remembrance of a woman whose love can also be magical. Why a woman (and not what Michael’s detractors will suggest to you)?

In the documentary Bill Whitfield, Michael’s personal bodyguard since 2006, same as many other people close to Jackson, did not have a moment of doubt about Michael’s attachments and said that he was ‘into women’.

52:47 (Whitfield)” I got to know Mr. Jackson quite well. I have been working in personal security for 25 years and one of the things you do in this business is to keep a close eye on the client. You know what the person likes, what he doesn’t like. And I’ve watched Mr. Jackson enough to know that hurting children – he wasn’t into that. Women. He was into women.

(voiceover) That’s what the Schleiters say too.

53:32 (Anton) “Of course, the media liked to report that Michael and I somehow had a relationship., that there was a love relationship. But of course, that’s not true. The media always wanted to connect Michael with little boys, so they had some fun writing this, for whatever reason.

Michael wasn’t just friends with me, he was friends with the whole family. And they always reduced it to me when it came to our friendship, but it wasn’t true at all.

I have been with my wife since 2001, and she was also there [with MJ] many times. There was no love relationship between Michael and me. I had a love relationship with my wife”.

Today Anton and his wife have two little children.

55:05 (Whitfield) “We had normal guy talk. When we as bodyguards were in the car with Mr. Jackson and a nice young woman walked by, he’d say something like ‘Wow, she is pretty”.

55:19 (Brad Buxer): “The type of women that he loved were South American women, with dark skin. I don’t want to get too personal, that would be weird. He likes the girls in Brazil. That was his favorite type of girl”.

However according to the time-honored tradition people like the “MJand boys” know better. They habitually  see only the boy by Michael’s side ignoring his sister even when the girl looks out of the hotel window together with  her brother and MJ:

“Jackson visited Anton in Germany for six years until 2006. FurthermoreAnton also travelled with Jackson to other countries and shared his hotel rooms. Here are some pictures of them in France (1997). They stayed friends. In 1999, 16-year-old Anton Schleiter was also seen at Jackson’s side regularly. This is a picture of them in a hotel room.

During the same year, Michael Jackson visited Disneyland in Paris. His travel companion was 16-year-old Anton Schleiter.

Michael Jackson’s detractors are either mad or half-blind – otherwise how is it possible to overlook the sister in those photos though she is always by her brother’s side and see only two people in the window when there are three people there (MJ, Anton and Franziska)?

On the other hand the freaks’ personal deformities enable them to see things in the Schleiters’ private videos which are simply not there. Here is an example.

Anton visited Neverland many times. There is a video filmed in Switzerland in 2000. From 12:40 until 14:00, Jackson is filming a young man who is holding his two kids. He goes down with his camera several times and it seems like he is checking out the guy’s butt. This guy is Anton Schleiter. He was 17 years old in that video. And as I already mentioned, Jackson is checking out his butt between 12:40 and 14:00.

Exclusive! Michael Jackson 100% New Rare private home videos with his kids #2

Okay, let’s watch the video if they insist on it. However when we look beyond the required 12:40-14:00 time frame we begin to realize that the video was recorded by Franziska and not by Michael Jackson. The distortion is not a surprise though – if she doesn’t exist for these people how could she record the video then?

Franziska and Paris in the same episode

The episode starts with Michael Jackson going out into the garden where he makes a few dance moves and Anton takes a picture of him, while Franziska is video recording both of them.

Prince starts crying and calls his father, so Michael reenters the house, and then leaves through another door to take off the coat he is wearing over his pajama.

Anton puts both children on the window-sill while Franziska continues to film them, moving her camera up and down. At some point we hear Michael’s voice asking the children to look back and upon hearing his voice they turn their faces to the camera. Then Anton carefully puts them on the floor and that is all.

Michael’s detractors must be super biased or super perverse to interpret so innocent and beautiful an episode as “MJ checking out the guy’s butt”.

Something is definitely not right with these guys and their fixed ideas about MJ…

As to their innuendoes about Anton Schleither here he is personally handling them in the AKTE documentary:

1:09:35 (Anton) “I never slept in a bed with Michael and he never even once touched me inappropriately”.

1:09:48 (voiceover) The Schleiter family from Hamburg was often invited to visit their friend Michael Jackson at the Neverland ranch, spent a lot of time there with the megastar. 

1:10:10 (Anton) “I never slept in a bed with Michael and that was never his wish or mine. This was never under consideration. We always had our own rooms.”

“It was never like Safechuck said here now, that you stayed with him and the family somewhere else. It was nothing like that. There were guest houses and there we were accommodated as a family and Michael was in his bedroom.

According to the press I’m exactly the kind of guy Michael would be after. I was a boy and spent a lot of time with Michael. But the press always presented it in a way that I spent a lot of time with Michael, even though it was us as a family”

There was never anything like this, he never even once touched me inappropriately. Nothing. He was simply like the dearest uncle one could ever imagine”

1:11:38 (Dieter Wisner, MJ’s manager) “We were at the ranch, there were different situations in the evening with several children, the nephews, people who were close to him. Then they were lying in the room with Michael on the floor. They sat on the bed and had tea with honey and so on, and read.

He did not lie in bed with them and then slept, it was just a room they felt comfortable in. There was nothing sexual, nothing like that! Complete nonsense”.

The AKTE documentary says that Anton and Franziska confirm “the closeness between the superstar and the children and that both experienced the close relationship with Michael Jackson was an exciting adventure”

27:30 (Anton) “When it came to the situation that you slept in one room, then Michael lay down on the floor, on a mattress , or on the couch.

Actually, it wasn’t even Michael who requested to stay overnight. When it happened it was us asking him because we wanted to watch movies together.”

“And you made yourselves comfortable. During the day we all threw ourselves in bed with our parents together, and we all lay there.”

The Schleiters were indeed very close to Michael Jackson but not the way those “MJandboys” mean it. The documentary says about the family:

1:22:40 (voiceover) Until Jackson’s death the Schleiters from Hamburg accompanied their friend for almost 15 years.  Jackson often brought his own children to the family. The Niendorfer Gehege (a forest park) was a place for everyone to relax. For a while Anton and Franziska have been like big siblings for Paris, Prince Michael and Blanket who have been suffering for years from the abuse accusations against their father.

1:23:17 (Anton) “It helped him a lot that he had his children. Children gave him a lot of strength. And the children loved their father more than anything. That was the greatest thing for him to have children of his own. Because he always loved children and when his dream came true to have his own children, that was the greatest thing for him. That gave him a lot of strength”.

1:23:41 (Wolfgang) “He was the best father you can imagine. No one could have known how Michael dealt with his children. He was with them day and night”.

As to Neverland, it turns out that Anton was the one who together with Michael’s nephew packed MJ’s belongings at the ranch when the trial was over as Michael refused to return there after the police desecrated his home:

1:18:00 (Anton) “After the police tore Neverland apart twice, slashing every pillow, it wasn’t his home anymore for Michael, he never wanted to go there again. Then Michael asked me and a nephew of his to pack all his things together. So I was there for a month and probably packed at least 2000 boxes. Full of all his things, from all the rooms.

We were there for a month, every day for at least ten hours and packed boxes. I found nothing reprehensible. If the FBI missed something, I would have found it, but there was nothing”.

The Schleiters also spoke about the trial:

40:00 (Wolfgang) “He knew he could always call us. He knew his phone calls were monitored, the prosecutor observed everything which is no secret any more given how communications are intercepted nowadays…. He said, ‘You don’t have to say anything, it is okay…”

40:28 (Anton) “We wrote him letters and through his managers he received them and afterwards he told us that he always was really happy when he received letters and that he always kept them with him. And that he regularly read them and I assume that it helped him too. We always said, “We believe in you” and “You can do it”, that we are behind you whatever happens, we will be there immediately and this helped him a lot.

The Schleiters visited him one last time a few weeks before his death.

42:57 (Franziska) “One of the first thoughts I had when he passed away, after the first shock, was really for me, who is saving the world now? This sounds so banal, but that symbolized Michael for me. I think a lot of people would never have thought of that at first, but as we knew him that was the Michael I knew, that he wanted good to the world and for the world”.

The makers of AKTE documentary let the Schleiter family watch “Leaving Neverland” and this was their reaction:

43:54 The Schleiters watch the documentary for the first time with us. 

Only after the new allegations of abuse in the TV documentary “Leaving Neverland” they want to express themselves and support their famous friend after his death. Because in the documentary two men report in detail how Michael Jackson allegedly sexually abused them as boys.

(Robson) He kissed me full open mouth, with his tongue in my mouth”.

Hearing what Robson claims in “Leaving Neverland” Wolfgang shakes his head and even laughs saying that he doesn’t want to watch this anymore.

(Wolgang) “I don’t wanna watch this anymore. This is utter bullshit”

(Franziska) starts crying: “Uhmm… sorry… can we stop it?”

(Wolfgang) “This is not Michael Jackson who is described in there… Never”

(Franziska) “From our perspective this isn’t possible, because we know a completely different person. And it’s so absurd to see this… I think”.

(Franziska) “This may be different for people who didn’t know him, because they don’t know how he was. They [the public] have to rely on opinions of others to get an idea of him. But for us, to see it from our perspective, this is too absurd. I cannot take it seriously”.

(Wolfgang) “It is staged like a feature film with the ‘human touch feeling’ that gets dragged into it. I think this is really shabby”.

(Anton) “It’s quite disgusting to see this. I don’t know what ….. to taint this wonderful place [Neverland]…. I think this is fiction”.

(Franziska) “I think it’s a difficult subject per se, that nobody – not us, but also nobody out there – has the right, uhm…. I mean victims don’t belong in a film, if anybody experienced such a thing, it belongs in court”.

Dieter Wiesner was similarly disgusted and was keen enough to notice that the two accusers are devoid of any emotion:

1:15:26 (Wiesner) “When I saw the first statements from the two men who were supposed to have experienced all this, I was simply shocked that someone has the cheek to go out and say something like that. Because when you look at it more closely, it is simply quite clear that it is told without any emotion. That just has not truth to it.

When you know Michael Jackson and hear the way they tell it, what happened it’s just unbearable

There is a lot more to the documentary as it also covers the various inconsistencies in “Leaving Neverland”; the love affair Robson had with Brandi Jackson (and cheated on her with Britney Spears) just at the time when he was supposed to be ‘in a relationship’ with MJ; the loving notes Michael regularly left to his nephew Taj Jackson and hundreds of his fans and not something unique for Robson and Safechuck; Dieter Wiesner telling us how Bashir staged the situation of Michael Jackson holding hands with Gavin Arvizo – he instructed them to sit down and asked Michael to put his arm around Gavin; Aphrodite Jones seeing Robson testify in support of Jackson and wondering what prevented him for telling his story when MJ was alive, and much, much more of it.

But when I asked myself what struck me most about the German documentary, the honest answer to myself even surprised me – it is the faces of all these people that make the most lasting effect of the documentary and seem to be telling the whole story.

It is the stone face of Wade Robson who is describing most disgusting things in a somewhat detached and technical manner:  “In the first week I was with him every night there was abuse”.

But there was no ‘”first week”, so consequently there was no “every night” and no “abuse”.

And then it is the smug expression on Ron Zonen’s face who says that “they had a sense of what Michael Jackson did with children when he was alone with them.”

Could someone please tell this person that “having a sense” is not enough for prosecuting someone for decades? And that he could have used his skills to catch real child predators of whom the LA area and particularly Hollywood abide. Or ask him if Corey Feldman gave the law enforcement enough “sense” of what was going on there when he spoke of his own molestation and named his abusers from Hollywood during the police interview about Jackson – to no reaction from the police?

I also recall the amazed Aphrodite Jones who had an amazed look on her face almost non-stop throughout the documentary: “And when he was acquitted I almost couldn’t believe what happened next: the whole media hype was gone in a heartbeat. At least 2000 journalists left the scene and …poof! They were gone”.

And when she researched the Arvizo case herself and realized that there was a conspiracy against Michael Jackson: “He didn’t do anything to these people. He helped them. They were liars, they were just liars. That’s when I had that moment of realizing. The jury got it right, the media was wrong”.

And her amazement at hearing Gavin Arvizo constantly change his testimony: “I was just thinking “You are lying through your teeth!”

And her account of Robson’s testimony: “I was in the courtroom when this man, this Robson, testified that Michael Jackson never did anything to him. He couldn’t wait to be called to the witness stand and testify under oath. And took the oath”.

I also remember the sad face of Thomas Mesereau when he recalled: “Sometimes Michael called me crying at night. Once he begged me not to drop the case if his enemies paid me millions of dollars. He said, ‘Tom, I know they will try it. Everyone wants to see me behind bars. I know, by enemies still try to bribe you”. So Michael did know that all of it was malicious prosecution, that he had enemies and they were ready to pay millions to get him behind bars.

I will also remember the face of Brad Buxer who nearly cried when he spoke of Michael Jackson’s children: “We’ve seen what Paris gone through because of the media. I mean we know what the children have to endure. In 2009 at the Staples Center, when Paris stood up there and told the world how much he loved her father. Jesus Christ, give them a break”.

And also the disturbed face of Taj Jackson who doesn’t worry about “Leaving Neverland” that much because he knows that it is full of lies, but is mostly annoyed that the US media does not report the multiple inconsistencies found there: “They have non-stop uncovered contradictions and inconsistencies and what annoys me most is that the American media have still not printed any of these errors.”

And also the determined face of Brandi Jackson who knows from her own intimate experience with Wade Robson that he is lying: “I just know that he is lying. There are so many lies in 4 hours, there are thousands. I could go through the whole list right now and expose every single lie. And none of these things add up.”

And the slimy face of Dan Reed who has the audacity to claim that he has “followed the rules of journalistic evidence” and that his film is about nothing else but “sexual actions that have taken place behind closed doors.”

But if it was behind closed doors and Reed didn’t see it, how can he be so sure that it is true? Even if he gives the accusers all the benefit of the doubt it will still be a fifty-fifty chance and in no way can be an affirmative statement.

No wonder his film got an award for ‘creativity’ – they couldn’t find any other nomination that could fit Dan Reed’s piece of fiction.

In fact even to the makers of AKTE documentary it is perfectly clear that Robson and Safechuck are liars, and the reason for it is very simple:

“The people who are accusing Jackson today are definitely liars. Now or before, because they tell a different story today than when Jackson was alive.”

And the documentary’s conclusion about the other side is also absolutely true and cannot be disputed:

“And the others who believe in his innocence, tell the same story all their lives.”

Actually, it is not only the same story told by the people who believe in Michael’s innocence which is so convincing, but it is also their faces which make the documentary so memorable.

When you see the Schleiter family and the way they remember Michael Jackson, it is the happiness their faces are radiating which convinces you most.

37 Comments leave one →
  1. Poly permalink
    June 27, 2020 8:38 pm

    “MJandboys” sounds like VG, isn’t? It can only be him or DD.

    About “Speechless”, i dont think Michael wrote it about a woman. It has a spiritual element to it; it’s about pure love, not about woman/man love. That was always my interpretation of this song. I think it also reflects his feelings about being a father, the unconditional love, as his mother katherine told in the AEG trial.

    “Speechless was inspired to me by, um, I spend a lot of time in the forest. I like to go into the forest and I like to climb trees. My favorite thing is to climb trees, go all the way up to the top of a tree and I look down on the branches. Whenever I do that it inspires me for music. There are these two sweet little kids, a girl and a boy, and they’re so innocent; they’re the quintessential form of innocence, and just being in their presence I felt completely speechless, ’cause I felt I was looking in the face of God whenever I saw them. They inspired me to write Speechless. -MJ (2001)”

    Like

  2. June 28, 2020 2:04 pm

    “I felt completely speechless, ’cause I felt I was looking in the face of God whenever I saw them. They inspired me to write Speechless” – Poly

    Poly, I absolutely don’t insist on the interpretation I presented in the post. In fact, Speechless could be (and must be) about God. Every single word of Speechless could be Michael’s prayer to God – not that passionate as before, much quieter now but expressing the same awe he always feels in His presence, the awe he cannot even put into words.

    Your love is magical, that’s how I feel
    But I have not the words here to explain
    Gone is the grace for expressions of passion
    But there are worlds and worlds of ways to explain
    To tell you how I feel

    But I am speechless, speechless
    That’s how you make me feel
    Though I’m with you I am far away
    And nothing is for real

    When I’m with you I am lost for words
    I don’t know what to say
    My head’s spinning like a carousel
    So silently I pray

    Helpless and hopeless
    That’s how I feel inside
    Nothing’s real, but all is possible
    If God is on my side

    When I’m with you I am in the light where I cannot be found
    It’s as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground

    Speechless, speechless
    That’s how you make me feel
    Though I’m with you I am far away
    And nothing is for real

    I’ll go anywhere
    And do anything
    Just to touch your face
    There’s no mountain high
    I cannot climb
    I’m humbled in your grace

    Speechless, speechless
    That’s how you make me feel
    Though I’m with you I am lost for words
    And nothing is for real

    Speechless, speechless
    That’s how you make me feel
    (You’re always on my mind)
    Though I’m with you I am lost for words
    And nothing is for real
    Speechless

    Your love is magical, that’s how I feel
    But in your presence I am lost for words
    Words like—like “I love you”

    And of course it is spiritual love, not physical – whether for a woman or God. In fact, any love is spiritual because it is selfless and altruistic and it is only sex which is physical and not the same as love. But the song is certainly not about sex.

    However the context into which the ‘MJandboys’ site placed this song suggested that it was about ‘lust for a boy’ and to a certain extent it is rather unfortunate that Michael honestly said that he wrote the song after associating with two children. In the dirty minds of perverts this alone is incriminating him, while in reality the fact that Michael did not even imagine that anyone could put an equal mark between the two gives away his innocent way of thinking. So innocent that it is difficult even for us to imagine.

    P.S. I think I will amend the post now to say a couple of words about this prayer.

    Like

  3. Poly permalink
    July 1, 2020 11:56 am

    Thank you for answering, helena. You’ve made it more clear for me.

    Like

  4. soncece_23 permalink
    July 6, 2020 7:23 am

    Hi Helena, wonderful article about German MJ friends, we need to hear more from real MJ friends! I have a totaly unrelatable question about fake MJ friend – have you heard Wade Robson is trying to move back to Australia? Fans on twitter have been chatting about him dropping molestation charges and mentioned he’s on the move….

    Like

  5. Des permalink
    August 28, 2020 8:14 am

    Hello Helena, I hope you well and safe,we all going through some tough times some more than others but it’s beyond our control and we have to do the best we can for ourselves and for others. I am thinking of Michael and am thinking of you too ,you see with Covid-19 it’s not just the virus we have lost our freedom and we don’t like it but for me thinking about Michael and how he was never free that someone was watching him all the time for better or for worse what kind of life is that! I believe I know more about this man than my own children and I also understand him more. I miss my grandchildren and they are the only ones that take my mind of from the sad situation we are in especially the younger ones and they growing up so fast and then they change that’s life.Everyone you talk these days they talk about Covid-19 and the rest that comes because of the virus, but children are different and am thinking about Michael from a very young age it was work and more work always business but logic tells me that he loved children anyway but children take your mind off from allot of things especially if they not your own .I miss Michael I think the world has changed for the worse since he left us ,tomorrow it’s a special day and we lost him but we had him.Love you all stay safe.

    Like

  6. alexc444 permalink
    August 31, 2020 12:45 am

    Hi helena! nice article, can you check this out please? https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

    Like

  7. September 9, 2020 1:43 am

    “Hello Helena, I hope you well and safe,we all going through some tough times some more than others but it’s beyond our control and we have to do the best we can for ourselves and for others.” – Des

    Hello Des, I hope you are well too. My hiatus was not so much due to the epidemic, but due to a lot of rethinking of the current and mostly political events taking place in the US now, which – to my great surprise – eventually brought me to understanding what forces stand behind Michael Jackson’s non-stop character assassination.

    However writing about it will require a good amount of courage on my part, because I presume that many people will not like the conclusions.

    At least I have shared some of my thoughts with Susanne, the co-admin of this blog, and she rejected them outright, and suggested that I refrain from saying anything like it in the blog – apparently not to do harm to the our common cause of defending the name of an innocent man and not drive away some readers from the blog, who think likewise about Michael Jackson, but may not share my views on other matters.

    However the problem is that Michael Jackson’s ongoing smear does have to do with these other matters and of this I am sure.

    So I will probably still write about it after all, but readers should know that these are only my personal beliefs which are not shared by my co-admin. This will give Susanne a perfect chance to express her own views on the subject, so theoretically you may read here some statements that are directly the opposite.

    Should I say what I need to say? I think yes, because the good name of Michael Jackson demands it.

    Like

  8. Des permalink
    September 12, 2020 3:27 am

    Dear Helena, I have spent most of my time of the last seven years of my life reading watching listening about Michael. I found this blog seven years ago just when I retired from work and since then,most of the times when I read or hear something about Michael I say to myself I know about that. I always loved Michael from when I was a lot younger I loved him when he was black and I loved him when he was white I didn’t think much about him changing from black to white at the start I thought he’s an entertainer he can be whatever he wants to be I never saw him as a colour I loved the man, the sexy man the sensual man the gentle man the respect he had for others and every living thing I felt him everything he was singing about I felt it he was expressing himself with his voice and with every part of his body I love listening to him just talking I have never seen that with anybody else.Now I come here almost every day,how many times you have to answer the same questions but you still take the time to answer,many times I want to say things that I don’t agree with other fans like when they say we can’t say it’s normal for children to share a bed with adults,but for me because I grown up like Michael in an environment that it was a way of life for all of us boys and girls and I never experience any kind of abuse so as everyone I know from back then and I want to talk about it ,I can’t see it the way others want me to see it or because it doesn’t feed in in the world that we are leaving that nothing is innocent anymore . I don’t like it that we always compare Michael with others and we put others down,and those competitions, they will never be another Michael Jackson and that’s a fact but let others blossom and in courage them like Michael was saying study the greatest and become greater.All I want is justice for him,the way he was treated and still is from people who saw him and see him as a money machine .I do believe Helena that race has a lot to do with Michael’s treatment and the problem is that even his own race treated him wrong like Oprah Winfrey,there’s something about this woman that I never liked and not because of Michael always from years ago we had her show here and I used to watch it sometimes,the way she was treating white people it’s like she was sucking up to them and then with black people she had this authority over them that used to make me sick .I don’t like her I don’t trust her I don’t believe her.For me I know that when Michael was alive the earth was breathing.
    Stay safe.

    Like

  9. September 12, 2020 10:41 am

    “there’s something about this woman that I never liked ,the way she was treating white people it’s like she was sucking up to them and then with black people she had this authority over them that used to make me sick”- Des

    This is exactly the case.

    “I do believe Helena that race has a lot to do with Michael’s treatment”

    I also believe that race had a lot to do with Michael’s treatment but that was in the 1980s and early 90s until the year 1992 when he had some sort of a clash with David Geffen. Since then other factors came into play though the race issue never went away of course.
    But since 1992 the race card began to be played the other way – he was accused by the white media of betraying his race. This was meant to put Michael in complete isolation. Blacks were supposed to turn away from him for the alleged ‘bleaching’ of his skin, while whites did not accept him as their own either.

    In my opinion the main reason why Michael was attacked by certain forces was his conservatism and him being a sort of an obstacle to the so-called ‘progressive’ views. Yes, by today’s standards he was a Conservative, though he never really realized it, and lived – alas – in a deeply ‘progressive’ state, next to deeply ‘progressive’ Hollywood and was surrounded by all-too ‘progressive’ forces.

    Like

  10. luv4hutch permalink
    September 12, 2020 3:21 pm

    Politics didn’t really have that much to do with Michael. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives equally believe that he is guilty and accept that idea as gospel, same way liberals and conservatives equally agree JFK assassination conspiracy theories. If anything, Michael was apolitical, who believed in nothing other than the goodness of humanity and seeking to make the world a better place, because the things he believed in should be things that are bipartisan, and once upon a time, really were.

    Just saying he was an affront to “progressivism” because “he refused to say he was gay and kept focusing on defending himself against that charge” is pretty weak. Likewise, liberals and conservatives equally believe the tabloid garbage about Michael. So, that wasn’t really a factor.

    If it really was a factor at all, it was merely that people like Geffen and Weinstein played Democrats and liberals and their causes for the longest time and they used their influence to smear Michael. That’s it. But progressives are not “trying to humanize and support child exploitation and sexualization,” that’s a cudgel that has been long discredited, and not at all representative of the group as a whole. A few bad apples do not represent the group as a whole, and accepting this idea at face value, especially by the likes of Milo and Stacey Dash does a great disservice. (I understand allies of convenience, but Milo isn’t even that. After all, he made JOKES about his sexual experience and then did a lot of other comments basically suggesting that predatory priests should be thanked for breaking a boy’s virginity. He only made the switch because he was called out and backpedaled in a very unconvincing way.)

    Like

  11. September 12, 2020 4:38 pm

    “Just saying he was an affront to “progressivism” because “he refused to say he was gay and kept focusing on defending himself against that charge” is pretty weak.” – luv4hutch

    I didn’t say that, so don’t understand who you are quoting. And Michael wasn’t gay and that was the crux of the matter. If he had been gay he wouldn’t have faced so many problems.

    “If it really was a factor at all, it was merely that people like Geffen and Weinstein played Democrats and liberals and their causes for the longest time and they used their influence to smear Michael. That’s it.”

    Correct. I don’t know whether Geffen and Weinstein only play Democrats and liberals or are real ones, but the fact remains that Geffen does have too much influence while all the time staying behind the scenes. When I read about his plans to go into politics in the NY Times article in early 90s, I didn’t really pay attention to it because “politics” to me meant mostly foreign affairs and things like that.
    However it turned out that it had to do with the domestic affairs and Geffen’s incredible influence in this respect on two Democratic Presidents – Clinton and Obama, as well as the media, and especially in the issues most sensitive to him, otherwise he wouldn’t be so much interested in politics at all. As a result of it the ‘progressive’ media which includes almost all mainstream media in the US essentially reflects Geffen’s ideas, his likes and his dislikes, the latter including Michael Jackson of course.

    “liberals and conservatives equally believe that he is guilty”

    Not quite. To my great surprise some of the most ardent supporters of Michael Jackson turned out to be conservatives – John Ziegler and Razorfist, for example. Razorfist was the greatest surprise of all as looking at him I could never imagine him to be a ‘conservative’. Evidently, my idea of conservatism is too old-fashioned or different from the way it is understood in the US. Seeing who is who in the US is difficult for me, especially since I never really paid attention to the differentiation.

    But now that it has finally caught my attention I can’t help noticing that it was conservative Rush Limbaugh who defended Michael Jackson in 1994:

    And that the pro-Michael Jackson Drudge reports also belong to a conservative trend:

    On the other hand CNN and the New York Times who are said to be deeply ‘progressive’ have been totally relentless towards Michael Jackson. I will never forget the list of the alleged MJ crimes compiled by CNN on the eve of Michael’s return from Ireland, the abhorrent number of lies there and the revolting manner in which CNN talked of Michael Jackson in general. The only objective journalist in CNN was Alan Duke who, if compared with others, made quite fair reports about the AEG trial, but – surprisingly – he had to leave CNN after that.

    Now that lots of journalists have to leave their newspapers because of the atmosphere of intolerance in their workplace and the need to adhere to the sort of “party line” as regards the various “progressive” issues their papers adhere to, I realize that it was useless to expect these journalists to make unbiased reports about Michael Jackson. Even if they wanted to they were simply not allowed to.

    However on the conservative side there is no such uniformity. Various people make various statements as regards MJ, and it looks like it is their personal opinion and not the hard “party line” imposed on them from the top.

    Needless to say, as someone who lived in the Soviet Union and now in Russia, I am abhorred by such restrictions imposed on journalists. But things have finally begun to make sense for me, and now I see why Aphrodite Jones could not find a publisher for her book (everyone refused) and why after the 2005 trial not a single journalist was interested in what Thomas Mesereau had to say.

    You are well on the way to communism, guys.

    Like

  12. luv4hutch permalink
    September 12, 2020 5:11 pm

    I’ve certainly granted that quite a few conservative media figures came out in support of Michael, which is surprising, though it doesn’t abrogate their own wrongdoings. (Razorfist in particular is especially egregious, in that while he says Michael is innocent, he also calls Bill Cosby innocent, and blames Gloria Allred for both, despite the fact the proof clearly shows Cosby’s guilt and Allred was barely involved with the Chandlers until Evan Chandler fired her. He says the justice system is broken, but if it’s broken to the degree he says that Cosby was railroaded, then how can he justifiably say justice worked in finding Michael innocent. If anything, Razorfist’s advocacy is not genuine, and he’s simply a contrarian. If it were the other way around and society rightly saw Michael was an innocent man, he’d be screeching about how “another popular and powerful celebrity got off, just like O.J.”

    However, regarding media outlets reported, those sites are only “liberal” because the Overton window has been moved so far to the right. In truth, CNN, the Times and so forth are corporate media, who has no real set ideology (in fact, they constantly bend over backwards to prove they are not “liberal media” by castigating Democrats far more often than Republicans, as the Clintons, Al Gore, Obama, Biden and Nancy Pelosi can easily tell you that they’re held to a different standard for the slightest infraction while Republican hypocrisy is barely commented on), but are driven on revenue, ratings and subscriptions more than anything. Corporate media has constantly refused to engage the truth on many political issues and held things in terms of “both sides are bad” reporting, and has continually downplayed environmental, social, economic and legal ramifications in favor of clickbait and mindless sensationalism. They constantly focus on celebrity driven “news”, stoking fires about franchise fandoms, create self-fulfilling prophecies about TV and movies (if they say something fails when it’s actually just launched long enough, then said movie or show becomes a failure) and refuse to call lies out as lies. If anything in America, we have the blatantly conservative and the milquetoast, corporate shills, but no real nucleus as liberal-based news, with the exception of MSNBC, which even then doesn’t cross enough boundaries, such as criticizing and attacking NBCUniversal’s parent company Comcast over the actions it takes to harm net neutrality.

    But in terms of the everyday citizen, the nobodies, liberals and conservatives are equal in terms of believing Michael was guilty. In fact, on a Van Halen fan forum I’m part of, that forum is filled with almost nothing but alt-right edgelords circle jerking each other against “SJWs” and “violent loony liberals”, and they all say Michael is guilty, and even say that Pete Townshend is a predator, even though his account of events was confirmed by Scotland Yard as accurate.

    As for the gay comments, I was merely trying to predict what you were going to say about Michael being in a state “surrounded by progressives” and was just anticipating that coming up. Sorry if I offended you at all.

    Like

  13. September 13, 2020 4:57 am

    Liberal, conservative, progressive – these are just words that sometimes cover up for exactly the opposite. Liberals may be not liberal (in fact the left are not classical liberals at all), conservatives may not be conservative and progressive may not be really progressive. As you name the boat so shall it float, so everyone is just beautifying his/her views and choosing the word that would present them in the best possible light.

    My understanding of Michael Jackson as a conservative comes from his religious and family views, and not from his views on political parties. On the other hand I can’t help noticing that despite the systemic racism alleged now about that period and later Michael received honors from two Republican presidents – Ronald Reagan (The Presidential Public Safety Commendation, in 1984) and George Bush Sr. (The Artist of the Decade, in 1990). From Clinton he didn’t receive any though Michael himself evidently considered him a friend as he sang at his inauguration party in 1993.

    Here is Ronald Reagan’s speech in honor of Michael Jackson – since that moment I’ve never heard anything better said about Michael by politicians of that calibre.

    May 14, 1984
    The President: Well, isn’t this a thriller? [Laughter] I’m delighted to see all of you here today. We haven’t seen this many people since we left China. And just think, you all came to see me. [Laughter]

    No, I know why you’re here, and with good reason — to see one of the most talented, most popular, and most exciting superstars in the music world today — Michael Jackson.

    And, Michael, welcome to the White House. I hope you’ll forgive me, but we have quite a few young folks in the White House who all wanted me to give you the same message. They said to tell Michael, “Please give some TLC to the PYTs.” [Laughter] Now, I know that sounds a little off-the-wall, but you know what I mean. [Laughter]

    And, Michael, I have another message from our fans in the Washington, DC, area. They said, we want you back. So, when you begin your greatly awaited crosscountry tour, will you please be sure to drop off here in the Nation’s Capital?

    Well, down to business. We’re gathered here to mark the progress of a shared endeavor and to commit ourselves to an even greater national effort, as Elizabeth told you. On April 14th of 1982, I created a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. And since that date, real progress has been made. States have passed tougher laws, arrests and enforcement have been stepped up, and citizens across our country are taking a stronger stand against the tragedies caused by drinking and driving.

    Another milestone resulted in the Commission’s work — the creation of a National Public Service Campaign to make more Americans aware of solutions to this national problem. Our campaign will marshal the power of the media, with the help, as you’ve been told, of the Advertising Council, our Private Sector Initiatives Office, and the Department of Transportation, under the strong leadership of Secretary Elizabeth Dole. This private sector-government partnership brings a message to young people that will touch many lives and change them for the better.

    Today we recognize all these fine efforts of voluntarism by the Commission members as well as those of the Ad Council. Helping one another for the good of this country and its citizens and without concern for reward or payment, this is the heart of America — strong, good, and true.

    I want to recognize another volunteer effort made for the good of our country, especially our nation’s youth, and it is, as you’ve been told, none other than Michael Jackson’s effort.

    At this stage of his career, when it would seem he’s achieved everything a musical performer could hope for, Michael Jackson is taking time to help lead the fight against alcohol and drug abuse.

    Michael, you’ve made it possible for us to warn millions of young Americans about the dangers of drinking and driving. You’ve done this with your music you’ve provided to the public service messages as well as through your own personal example. And thanks to your help, Michael, young people from virtually every family in America will hear these messages on television and radio. And they will hear them at one of the most criticial times of the year, when graduations and vacations are fast approaching. Thanks to your help, lives will be saved. And no one can put a dollar value on the precious life of one boy or girl.

    Michael Jackson is proof of what a person can accomplish through a lifestyle free of alcohol or drug abuse. People young and old respect that. And if Americans follow his example, then we can face up to the problem of drinking and driving, and we can, in Michael’s words, beat it.

    Nancy spends a great deal of her time with young people talking about the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, so I speak for both of us when I say, thank you, Michael, for the example that you’re giving to millions of young Americans who look up to you.

    And let me just say as one who spent a certain part of his life in the entertainment business, what Michael Jackson has achieved is a tribute to 20 years of hard work, energy, tireless dedication, and a wealth of talent that keeps on growing. Your success is an American dream come true.

    And now, if you’d permit me, I would like to present you with this award. And I would like to read what it says:
    “To Michael Jackson, with appreciation for the outstanding example you have set for the youth of America and the world. Your historic record-breaking achievements and your preeminence in popular music are a tribute to your creativity, dedication, and great ability. The generous contribution of your time and talent to the National Campaign Against Teen-age Drunk Driving will help millions of young Americans learn that drinking and driving can kill a friendship.”

    Michael Jackson: I’m very, very honored. Thank you very much, Mr. President and Mrs. Reagan.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:01 a.m. on the South Lawn of the White House.
    https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sspeeches/51484a

    If Michael Jackson had not been slandered he would have continued to be an idol for American youngsters, and the social US environment would have been completely different today.

    Deeply religious views and God-abidence (most of MJ’s songs), no violence (“Beat it”), making the world better through individual effort and starting with oneself in the first place (“Man in the mirror”), striving for education (“BAD”), hard work, strong family with many children (even an anti-abortion “Abortion Papers” song!), parents spending their time with kids instead of neglecting them (“Do you know where your children are?” ) and much more of it.

    By all accounts views like that would be considered deeply conservative now.
    Does anyone really think that progressive forces like Geffen would welcome all of it, especially considering Michael Jackson’s influence on young people’s minds ?

    P.S. An interesting phenomenon. I put here the link to President Reagan’s speech in honor of Michael Jackson, and though the link is correct, what you actually saw was Michael Jackson’s “Billy Jean”. How is that I wonder?
    Here is once again the link that miraculously changes into Billy Jean:

    Just take the same link (https://wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=XEmj9MTqoGk&list=RDjmzKjqTxkIY&index=1), put a dot after “www” and copy it into “search” and you will see that it is Ronald Reagan’s speech instead.

    Someone definitely doesn’t want the public to see Michael Jackson being hosted at the White house and awarded by President Reagan!

    Like

  14. September 13, 2020 6:21 am

    “in terms of the everyday citizen, the nobodies, liberals and conservatives are equal in terms of believing Michael was guilty.” – lub4hutch

    Correct. After the media which is controlled by certain personalities (called by you the corporate media) tarred and feathered Michael Jackson, ordinary citizens found themselves in the same boat – they were brainwashed alike irrespective of their views.

    But when it comes to individual researchers of Michael Jackson’s case you begin to notice the difference – the ‘progressive’ ones do not even try to look into real facts, while some conservatives at least make an effort. Why? Because they are less pressured by the agenda imposed on them by their bosses. They are (or were) more independent and more individual.

    As to their other views – on politics, Bill Cosby or whoever – to me this is irrelevant. I myself haven’t done any research of the Bill Cosby case, so cannot voice an opinion here. Who knows, probably Razorfist did? Well, the fact that Thomas Mesereau agreed to defend Bill Cosby at least makes me give Cosby the benefit of the doubt. But again, unless I look into the facts myself and analyze everything inside out I cannot voice an opinion here.

    Like

  15. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 10:17 am

    The views in Michael’s songs apply a lot to progressives as well, because conservatives don’t have a monopoly on family values (though a number of bad faith actors have twisted and manipulated it to their means, particularly the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of this world), but progressives get often get tarred just because they’re viewed as “anti-American) for supporting anti-war demonstrations, marches for equal rights for women and minorites, reform of the justice system, addressing climate change, and other pet causes. When riots and looting break out, it is predominantly either by agitators looking for an excuse to cause violence and don’t believe in these causes, or provocateurs who are inflitrating these groups, posing as one of them, to make them receive the blame. You look at the BLM marches, and they are predominantly peaceful, impassioned, and following social distancing and mask-wearing guidelines, a fact shown if you’ve seen the new 25th anniversary edit of “They Don’t Care About Us” that Spike Lee made. There are also many progressives who are God-fearing, especially the BLM marchers, NAACP and Southern Poverty Law Center leaders, and known political figures like Obama, Biden, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, and so on. Michael’s religious beliefs may indeed have made him more like conservatives, but liberals who believe in his innocence actually have a lot of common ground with him.

    Also, classical liberalism hasn’t remotely applied to progressives in decades. Classical liberalism is conservatism by another name, that’s largely due to realignments the world over, especially in America and how the Overton window was moved to the right, so that people who would be rightfully considered centrist and conciliatory decades ago, like the Clintons, Obama and Biden, are dubbed as extreme leftists when they’re not. But among media figures, you are sadly right, that in terms of those dedicated solely to researching the case, there was a disturbing trend in which progressives particularly seemed eager to follow the crowd. Though, of course, while people like Geraldo stood to his defense, that actually set him apart from other Fox News personalities, like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who especially led the drumbeat against Michael from that network. Basically, it’s a very thorny and complicated issue, many twists and turns, lots of shades of grey in between.

    Don’t think I’m trying to start a fight or attacking you in any way. I just wanted to share insights, and hear your own. But of course, all this political stuff doesn’t matter so much in the end regarding to what the main point is: that Michael was an innocent man wronged by forces seeking to take him down, which we now are starting to realize was spearheaded by the likes of Geffen, seeking revenge simply because Michael wouldn’t sign to his label or accept his advances; a petty response that was essentially a nuclear detonation in response to a pinprick, because Michael was such a gentleman and kind individual when he said “no,” never once thinking that the “no” would unleash a firestorm of hate.

    Like

  16. September 13, 2020 3:46 pm

    “Don’t think I’m trying to start a fight or attacking you in any way. I just wanted to share insights, and hear your own.”- luv4hutch

    I don’t think any of it. In fact I am grateful to you for your insights because there is still for me a lot to understand about the main tendencies in the US now. And today’s personalities like Biden or Trump are the least interesting to me as I am much more interested in the 1990s when Michael’s career was ruined, the forces which were at play at that time and the social processes taking place then. Especially the Clinton era as he was inaugurated in 1993 which is when the whole thing against Michael Jackson really started – and until his death.

    The situation today stemmed from the events during that period, and this is what I am trying to research now.

    “the main point is: that Michael was an innocent man wronged by forces seeking to take him down, which we now are starting to realize was spearheaded by the likes of Geffen, seeking revenge simply because Michael wouldn’t sign to his label or accept his advances”

    This is indeed the main point, however I think that the differences between Michael and Geffen went far deeper than not just signing to his label or accepting his advances. In terms of their beliefs and views on every aspect of life these two people were simply poles apart.
    Popular as Michael was he had a huge potential that could enable him to influence millions of people (in his naturally ‘conservative’ way), and as such was a danger to Geffen’s far-reaching goals of reforming the society.

    Like

  17. September 13, 2020 5:07 pm

    “The views in Michael’s songs apply a lot to progressives as well, because conservatives don’t have a monopoly on family values” – luv4hutch

    Conservatives certainly don’t have the monopoly on family values, but for progressives today it is a kind of a side issue and a relative one at that. When I read now about 29 (twenty nine) gender identities in addition to man and woman distinquished in the New York city, for example, and promoted by some ‘progressive’ professors teaching transgender studies at universities, I can hardly imagine what kind of family values these progressive forces can support.

    In this video of 2016 the problem is discussed at approx. 10:40 where Nicholas Matte, professor at Toronto university explains that “it is not correct that there is such a thing like biological sex” and calls the idea that people divide into males and females “a very popular misconception”. Like many ‘progressive’ scholars he thinks that sex is a social construct and is fluid, so gender must be predominantly a matter of choice (?) for him, his students and now the general public.

    Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at Toronto university who took part in the same panel, was accused by Nicholas Matte of “hate speech” and a hate crime because Peterson refused to follow the new law in Canada that required him to address those with fluid gender with pronouns of their choice (for example, “they”) saying that it broke his right to free speech.

    To me the whole thing (same as the priority attached to the matter) sounds insane and I think that if Michael Jackson had heard of all of it he would have been similarly shocked and amazed.

    Of course progressivism is not limited only to the above issues, and in other aspects like climate change and matters of equality, for example, Michael would be quite ‘liberal’ too, but knowing how big a place in Michael’s heart belonged to his children and family in general, I don’t doubt for a second that all this discussion of gender identities and the alleged “injustice” it involves would be regarded by him as unnecessary, artificial and probably even crazy – or at least distracting people from the real problems they face.

    Like

  18. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 5:21 pm

    Psychologists are still figuring out the spectrum of sexuality, and we don’t know all the details yet. In fact, they admit there’s still plenty of areas to search. But we do know that it’s not simply “man or woman”, and that there is plenty of shades in between. Admittedly, some of these different shades seem to expressed as too many arbitrary labels, but I’m open to the idea. Family values, regarding this issue is, whatever your child is, whatever their identity truly, truly is, support them and show them love and attention for it. That’s all there is to it. Saying people can’t actually support family values by believing that gender and sexuality is not a black and white, only two choices, option, is quite unfair and dishonest. While it shouldn’t be a codified law, the fact remains that people on the spectrum of sexuality should be called by their preferred pronouns to show respect, unless they tell you to your face “you can say what you want.” So, basically, Caitlyn Jenner (certainly a despicable figure) is a woman and should be referred as such, complete with she/her pronouns.

    Jordan Peterson is an actual bigot, who talks about women in the workplace quite disparagingly, that divorce is unacceptable, that skirts around justifying rape (and had several sexual assault allegations against him), that “men can’t control crazy women”, says sex education is immoral, and says gay marriage is an abomination. He often spouts actual hate speech on these many topics.

    Like

  19. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 5:28 pm

    Of course, I don’t know all the answers about all this, nor does anyone really, and some labels on the spectrum could very well be eliminated as redundant or outdated in time. People’s identities and search for themselves is quite valid and should be looked at in that light, because it helps them grow comfortable in their skin. Of course, some people who go to “University of Google” and who seek to bypass years of psychological counseling before being affirmed as their identities through surgery and other means can easily make mistakes or be too confused. And many people are on the receiving end of injustice. In many ways, sadly, we haven’t progressed far enough from the death of Matthew Shepard, murdered simply for being gay, in 1998, or the fact that some children are being murdered by their parents for coming out as trans or non-binary. To say that the “injustice” is artificial and crazy is simply not true, though again, you have to take everything on a case by case basis, to sift out the genuine ones from attention seekers and actors in bad faith that will inevitably crop up. Of course, on a cosmic scale, it pales in comparison to a lot of other crises in the world, and it should not be a crisis, and people should be accepted as who they are, while the fakers are rightfully shunned, but to say that none exists at all is just wrong.

    Michael would have try to understand, even if he wouldn’t always get it, and may not fully accept it all, but he would’ve listened and tried to help.

    Like

  20. September 13, 2020 7:02 pm

    “Jordan Peterson is an actual bigot, who talks about women in the workplace quite disparagingly, that divorce is unacceptable, that skirts around justifying rape , that “men can’t control crazy women”, says sex education is immoral, and says gay marriage is an abomination. He often spouts actual hate speech on these many topics.” – luv4hutch

    Oh, so this is what is alleged about Jordan Peterson? But what I have heard from him personally (on Youtube) is completely different.

    “Psychologists are still figuring out the spectrum of sexuality, and we don’t know all the details yet.”

    There are psychologists and “psychologists”. Jordan Peterson is also a professor of psychology and clinical psychologist at that who doesn’t merely theorize but treats his patients, and his views are directly the opposite. But one doesn’t even have to be a psychologist to realize that 29 gender identities are an insanity. People just need to be reasonable and not fall for crazy “studies” like that.

    I have two psychologists in my family and know firsthand that psychology is not an exact science like mathematics. There are numerous schools of thought there, and even mega scientists like Zigmund Freud and Carl Yung who initially cooperated with each other eventually had so big differences that they parted ways to never talk to each other again.

    “But we do know that it’s not simply “man or woman”, and that there is plenty of shades in between.”

    No, we don’t know it. There are some borderline cases, but they are minimal, not more than 0,3% – unless you hammer these ideas into people’s heads. Because once you do, the number of those in doubt about their gender will grow progressively and quickly turn into 3% and more.

    Biology is a more exact science and this is what one brave and honest biologist said about this issue (he had to pay a dear price for his honesty as he had to leave his job due to the ‘progressive’ forces – so much for fairness and justice for all).
    Colin Wright:

    “…The pseudoscience I observed was coming from the other side of the political spectrum—especially in the form of “Blank Slate” proponents who argued (falsely) that sex differences in human personality, preferences, and behavior are entirely the result of socialization.

    It was also during this time that I started to take an interest in what many now call “gender ideology.” This ideology not only invites compassionate treatment for trans individuals (which I support), but also promotes the scientifically inaccurate claims that biological sex exists on a continuous “spectrum,” that notions of male and female may be mere social constructs, and that one’s sex may be determined by self-declared “identity” instead of reproductive anatomy.

    When I pushed back against these claims, I was smeared as a transphobic bigot. Fearing professional harm, I stopped engaging, ceding the field to those who champion fashionable fictions.

    I graduated with a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara in 2018, and took a postdoctoral position at Penn State. I’d just joined Twitter, and observed that the pseudoscience I’d seen on campus had by now metastasized to the wider world and become the stuff of everyday hashtags. Even scientists whom I knew personally and respected were parroting this nonsense as scientific fact. But I dared not say a word. I would soon be applying to tenure-track assistant-professor jobs; I could not be seen publicly arguing down the claim that internally felt gender feelings trumped biology.

    A few weeks later, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying an individual’s sex using any combination of anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science.” These events, happening in such close succession, pushed me beyond my threshold for restraint. Despite my academic mentors’ warnings that speaking up could ruin my career, I let my bottled-up frustrations out in an essay I sent to Quillette. It was published under the headline, The New Evolution Deniers.

    […] If you’re looking for common characteristics among those of us who get targeted for cancelation, it isn’t money or privilege. Rather, many of us simply have an inability to mumble slogans we know aren’t true. Over time, we become exasperated with dishonest propaganda that masquerades as social justice, and we speak out. It’s a habit rooted in the truth-telling, whistle-blowing impulse that, not so long ago, progressives applauded.

    I broke my Twitter silence on Valentine’s Day, 2020, when the Wall Street Journal published an essay I’d co-authored with developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton, titled The Dangerous Denial of Sex. Although constrained by the space limitations of the op-ed format, Dr. Hilton and I were able to briefly outline the science of biological sex, and detail how its denial harms vulnerable groups, including women, gay men, lesbians, and, especially, gender non-conforming children. Even more than other pieces I’d bylined, this one unleashed a tidal wave of online hate—perhaps because we’d pricked the precious conceit that gender ideology saves children instead of harming them.

    Earlier this year, on February 22nd, I tweeted out a Guardian article titled, “Teenage transgender row splits Sweden as dysphoria diagnoses soar by 1,500%,” accompanied by my own two-word commentary: “social contagion.” My tweet would have made sense to those familiar with the work of Brown University academic Lisa Littman, and particularly her scientific paper hypothesizing links between “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) and peer contagion within cliques of teenage girls. However, activists were able to contort my comment in a way that suggested I was targeting the children themselves or suggesting gender dysphoria was akin to a virus.

    […]In April, I chose to leave academia. To give credit to Penn State, I was not fired. In fact, I had the opportunity to extend my fellowship contract for another year. However, I no longer believed that any amount of hard work or talent on my part would lead to a tenure-track academic job in the current climate. Nor did I want to spend my time constantly responding to false accusations of transphobia and racism. I had embarked on this journey because I love science, and wanted to help beat back the forces of pseudoscience in the public sphere. But that project is impossible when scientists themselves have become intimidated by small clusters of activists who demand that the scientific method be subordinated to magical thinking, and who seek to ruin the lives of those who dissent. If you follow in my footsteps, you can expect to receive similar treatment.

    None of the views I have ever espoused are extreme. Indeed, all or most are taken as common sense by pretty much anyone who isn’t an activist or professional academic. And I will repeat them here.

    Male and female are not social constructs, but are real biological categories that do not fall on a spectrum.

    Humans are sexually dimorphic, and this matters in certain contexts, such as sports. Ignoring the reality of sexual dimorphism can harm women and members of the gay community whose experience of discrimination is rooted in these real differences between male and female bodies. Esoteric theories of gender that purport to deny the reality of biology, or that conflate biological sex with secondary sexual characteristics or sex-based stereotypes, can confuse children; and are likely partly responsible for the massive uptick in self-reported gender dysphoria among adolescents, especially teen girls.

    In the closing lines of The New Evolution Deniers, I wrote that academia was “no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals,” and that “one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual.” My own experience, reinforced by the steady flow of emails I receive from concerned academics, would suggest that the situation has only gotten worse.

    What you have read here is the story of just one ex-academic. But it should concern everyone that the entire academy is now being held hostage to a vocal minority that insists we should inhabit a fantasy intellectual milieu that is little more than an ideologically deflected play on Christian myths.

    Make no mistake: Cancel culture is very real. And its manifestations are not confined to the rich and powerful. As with many cultural processes, the fight to roll it back will be a long, hard struggle. I don’t pretend to know how it will end. But I do know that it begins by opening our eyes to the problem. To do otherwise would represent—if I may borrow a phrase from the social-justice lexicon—the literal erasure of my own lived experience.

    https://quillette.com/2020/07/30/think-cancel-culture-doesnt-exist-my-own-lived-experience-says-otherwise/

    The moral of the story: all this craziness is actually an ideology and a pseudoscience, and dishonest propaganda that masquerades as social justice. But honest biologists who call a spade a spade have to sacrifice their careers for telling the truth. If this is ‘justice’ sought by the ‘progressive’ forces, then I don’t know what injustice is.

    Besides that it is also extremely unfortunate that Paris Jackson has fallen for this fashionable trend. And the only person she would really listen to is not beside her and will never be…

    Like

  21. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 7:09 pm

    These are things Jordan Peterson has actually said:

    http://archive.is/4Pa8U

    http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

    From the last above link:

    “There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.”

    From the last above link:

    “And it’s the same thing when you’re living together with someone. You know that people who live together before they get married are more likely to get divorced, not less likely. And the reason for that is: What exactly are you saying to one another when you live with each other? Just think about it. “Well, for now, you’re better than anything else I can trick — but I’d like to reserve the right to trade you in, conveniently, if someone better happens to stumble into me.” Well how could someone not be insulted to their core by an offer like that? Now they’re willing to play along with it, because they’re gonna do the same thing with you. Well that’s exactly it. It’s like “Yeah, yeah, I know you’re not gonna commit to me, so that means you don’t value me or our relationship above everything else, but as long as I get to escape if I need to, then I’m willing to put up with that.” It’s like — that’s a hell of a th[ing] — I mean, you might think, “How stupid is it to shackle yourself to someone?” It’s stupid, man, there’s no doubt about that. But compared to the alternatives, it’s pretty damn good. Because without that shackling, there are things you will never, ever learn, because you’ll avoid them. You can always leave, and if you can leave you don’t have to tell each other the truth. It’s as simple as that, cuz you can just leave, and then you don’t have anyone you can tell the truth to.”

    Like

  22. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 7:12 pm

    Other nuggets of “wisdom”:

    Peterson: With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage…

    Mae: Wait…what does consensual sex outside marriage have to do with sexual harassment? They are not even linked.

    Peterson: How, precisely, exactly, do you know when there is consent? Does it need to occur at each step (as it now does in Canada)? What, precisely, is a step?

    balls2thewall: He is alluding to the fact of when you continue to stretch the boundaries of what the original intent of sex was in terms of the foundation of western culture. In this case Christianity; where sex was meant for the confines of marriage as a gift from God.

    Mae: ‘The original intent of sex’? Based on primitive standards that don’t apply to modern society? There is literally no difference between consensual sex in a marriage and outside one.

    Peterson: Except for the marriage part.

    Vice Interviewer: women get raped quite a bit in colleges. Do you feel like that’s a problem?

    Peterson: I don’t think that that’s a very good way of stating the problem.

    Vice Interviewer: I don’t know how to more clearly state the problem, which is that women get raped in college.

    Peterson: The problem is that sexual behavior in young people is complex and dysregulated and often fueled by alcohol. And so all sorts of things happen that people regret and don’t like. And we have no idea what to do about it.

    I’ve been warned innumerable times not to have a discussion with a student, male or female, but it’s the females that are of concern to this particular rule, with the door closed and that’s that’s not like six months ago, that’s not like 3 months ago, that’s like advice from the last 50 years. I don’t listen to that because I think, ‘Sorry, I’m not living that way.’ But these things are tense, they’re tense, and we won’t talk about them intelligently and maturely. You know, I’ve also been accused three times in my career of sexual impropriety, baseless accusations, and the last one really tangled me up for a whole year, it’s not entertaining. So there’s plenty to be sorted out, but like I said already, we live in the delusion of a 13 year old adolescent girl, so as long as we maintain that level of sophistication, we’re not gonna have a real conversation about what rules should govern men and women in the workplace, so you can’t even open the damn discussion without being jumped on by, uh, you know, an array of, like, rabid harpies.”

    Like

  23. luv4hutch permalink
    September 13, 2020 7:21 pm

    Quillette is a haven for alt-right edgelords to post comments that are Islamophobic, anti-feminist, homophobic. They talk about “human biodiversity”, which is actually neo-Nazi beliefs about “inferior races” and white nationalism just gussied up to sound respectable. Especially when they talk about “IQ differences in blacks and whites.” Quillette is not a respectable organization.

    And people like Colin Wright are not actual biologists. They are to biologists and psychology what “intellectual design” and creationism is to the story of the evolution of life or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Not remotely grounded in reality. Mr. Wright is the real minority. The vast majority of biologists and scientists think otherwise from him.

    Or are you suggesting that it is impossible for people to be born in the wrong body, and that someone born male is born male no matter what, and that when they say “I am actually a woman,” they are mentally disturbed, not someone who needs a surgery to be the gender they actually are? That Chaz Bono is not a man, but a lesbian woman in denial?

    Like

  24. September 13, 2020 7:24 pm

    These are things Jordan Peterson has actually said – luv4hutch

    Well, well. I’ve watched only one video (this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q&t=7m30s) but didn’t hear anything bad from Jordan Peterson. I probably wasn’t attentive enough (it is almost 4 am here), but my impression is that Jordan Peterson speaks of women there with very much respect, doesn’t he?
    Now I need to go to bed after all, but later will watch it again and look up the rest.

    Like

  25. September 13, 2020 7:39 pm

    “alt-right edgelords”, “Islamophobic”, “anti-feminist”, “homophobic”, “neo-Nazi beliefs”, “white nationalism” – luv4hutch

    Words, words, words…

    “Mr. Wright is the real minority. The vast majority of biologists and scientists think otherwise from him.”

    A cautionary note: This is bolsheviks’ ideology in its pure form. “Bolsheviks” in Russian mean “the majority”. Bolsheviks eliminated all dissenters in Russia under the pretext that they were the majority and therefore expressed the views of “all people”. And since the majority cannot be wrong, it is they who are right and those “standing in the way to the truth” should be wiped out. And they were.

    In the same way bolsheviks erased the genetics as a science. Genetics was anti-human, “Nazi”, ultra-right and whatnot. The majority of Soviet academics absolutely agreed with this ideology and didn’t mind when their colleagues were fired, tried for their “ultra-right” beliefs and imprisoned. The major Russian geneticist Nikolay Vavilov was sentenced to death, but died in prison (of hunger). He was a scientist whose only guilt was that he didn’t belong to the majority. He could have saved the planet from hunger due to his groundbreaking research in improvement of wheat, corn and other cereal crops but died of hunger himself.

    Bolshevism is like that.

    Like

  26. September 16, 2020 4:17 pm

    “These are things Jordan Peterson has actually said” – luv4hutch

    I’ve watched the short video selections you’ve sent us and read the comments (all of them being positive towards Peterson), and also listened to some of his long lectures and interviews that provide the general picture and not just nitpick at some phrases here and there, and I am genuinely amazed that anyone can think of Jordan Peterson as a “bigot who spouts actual hate speech”.

    To be able to react to Jordan Peterson adequately all you need to have is a bit of a sense of humor – to see where he is serious and where he is half-joking to provoke his opponent to depart from stereotyped thinking.

    Jordan Peterson looks to me like a very reasonable person, and also like a true therapeutist who tries to help people to cope with their real problems instead of theorizing about unnecessary things in most abstract terms.

    His comment on marriage is actually quite insightful:

    “How stupid is it to shackle yourself to someone?” It’s stupid, man, there’s no doubt about that. But compared to the alternatives, it’s pretty damn good. Because without that shackling, there are things you will never, ever learn, because you’ll avoid them.”

    So when you are married and have children, you learn to be more responsible as you have to negotiate with your partner to find common ground, while in sex outside marriage everything is much easier and lacking any responsibility – today you are together and tomorrow you part. Easy.

    “Quillette is a haven for alt-right edgelords to post comments that are Islamophobic, anti-feminist, homophobic. They talk about “human biodiversity”, which is actually neo-Nazi beliefs about “inferior races” and white nationalism. Quillette is not a respectable organization. And people like Colin Wright are not actual biologists.” – lub4hutch

    Well, Wiki describes Quillette as quite respectable – as an online magazine that primarily focuses on science, technology, news, culture, and politics. It was originally created in 2015 (by Australian journalist Claire Lehmann) to focus on scientific topics, but began covering political and cultural issues concerning freedom of speech and identity politics. Its editorial position was described in 2017 as “libertarian-leaning”.

    Regarding the claim about it being “alt-right”: In May 2019 Quillette published something exactly the opposite – “an article that alleged connections between Antifa activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right. According to Shane Burley and Alexander Reid Ross, they and a number of other journalists received death threats after the claims were published”.

    Some media praise Quillette because “most of the contributors are academics but the site reads more like a well researched opinion section than an academic journal”. The founder says that the website is “a refuge from the political correctness and leftist bias that allegedly plague both academia and the mainstream media.” Contributors often shared Claire Lehmann’s interest in debunking the “blank slate” theory of human development, which postulates that individuals are largely products of nurture, not nature. But it quickly grew beyond that topic. In “setting up a space where we could critique the blank slate orthodoxy,” Lehmann says, Quillette “has naturally evolved into a place where people critique other aspects of what they see as left-wing orthodoxy.”

    The Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast and other left-wing media are critical of Quillette, but the most they say is that it is “a site that fancies itself intellectually contrarian but mostly publishes right-wing talking points couched in grievance politics”.

    Nothing is alleged about it being “Islamophobic, anti-feminist, homophobic, neo-Nazi” or whatever.

    This is your interpretation of this magazine which effectively tells me that you adhere to left-wing (possibly extreme left-wing) views. Correct?

    Like

  27. September 16, 2020 5:41 pm

    “Or are you suggesting that it is impossible for people to be born in the wrong body, and that someone born male is born male no matter what, and that when they say “I am actually a woman,” they are mentally disturbed, not someone who needs a surgery to be the gender they actually are?” -luv4hutch

    What I suggest is that the problem is gravely exaggerated and that the priority given to it (by the leftists) does not even minimally reflect the real number of people who may be facing such a problem. The occurrence of real cases is 0,3%, but the more you propagate it the higher it gets. In the US it has already spiked by 1,000% and in the UK by 4,000%.

    The transgender craze damages lots and lots of young people, while the media, pseudo-scientists and “activists” go after every person who dares express concern about this trend – see what they did to Joanne Rowling. The craze has gone so far that people are afraid to say a word of dissent!

    Actually it reminds me very much of what they did to Michael Jackson, and possibly for the same reason – he must have said something which was not to the liking of some influential people that are working to erode the social and cultural norms under the banner of civil rights.

    And I am especially concerned about Paris Jackson now that I’ve read some controversial reports about her. It seems that she is also confused, like all these other girls, and what makes me especially angry and resentful is that she has fallen for the trend that was set by her father’s worst enemy as part of his own agenda.

    Fortunately there are still some reasonable people in the US and I hope very much that they will not allow this craziness to take over. Here is an excerpt from a recent book “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier

    The transgender cult is damaging our daughters
    An excerpt from Irreversible Damage
    Abigail Shrier

    June 27, 2020

    Lucy had always been a ‘girly girl’, her mother swore. As a child, she would climb into high heels and frilly dresses to do her chores, retiring to a bedroom packed with Beanie Babies and an expansive array of pets she tended — rabbits, gerbils, parakeets. Dress-up was a favorite game, and she had a trunk full of gowns and wigs she would dip into, inhabiting an assortment of characters — every one of them female. She embraced the girlhood of the late 1990s, adoring the Disney princess movies, especially The Little Mermaid, and later, Twilight and its sequels.

    Lucy was precocious. At five, she read at a fourth-grade level and showed early artistic promise, for which she would later win a district-wide prize. But as she reached middle school, her anxiety spiked. The waters of depression rushed in. Her affluent parents — mom was a prominent Southern attorney — took her to psychiatrists and therapists for treatment and medication, but no amount of talk therapy or drugs leveled her social obstacles: the cliques that didn’t want her, her nervous tendency to flub social tests casually administered by other girls.

    Boys gave her less trouble, and she had male friends and boyfriends throughout high school. Home life wasn’t easy; her older sister fell into a drug addiction that tore through the family like a hurricane, consuming both parents’ attention. Lucy’s ups and downs eventually resolved in a bipolar II diagnosis. But making and keeping female friends proved a trial that never concluded in her favor nor ever really let up.

    Liberal arts college in the Northeast began, as it so often does these days, with an invitation to state her name, sexual orientation, and gender pronouns. Lucy registered the new chance at social acceptance, a first whiff of belonging.

    When her anxiety flared later that autumn, she decided, with several of her friends, that their angst had a fashionable cause: ‘gender dysphoria’. Within a year, Lucy had begun a course of testosterone. But her real drug — the one that hooked her — was the promise of a new identity. A shaved head, boys’ clothes, and a new name formed the baptismal waters of a female-to-male rebirth.

    The next step — if she took it — would be ‘top surgery’, a euphemism for a voluntary double mastectomy.

    ‘How do you know this wasn’t gender dysphoria?’ I asked her mother.

    ‘Because she’d never shown anything like that. I never heard her ever express any discomfort over her body. She got her period when she was in the fourth grade, and that was super embarrassing for her because it was so early, but I never heard her complain about her body.’

    Her mother paused as she searched for an apt memory. ‘I made her get a pixie haircut when she was five and she just cried buckets over it because she thought she looked like a boy. She hated it.’ And then, ‘She’d dated boys. She’d always dated boys.’

    Under the influence of testosterone and the spell of transgression, her mother said, Lucy became churlish and aggressive, refusing to explain this new identity or answer any questions about it. She accused her mother of being a ‘gatekeeper’ and a ‘transphobe’. Lucy’s manufactured story of having ‘always known she was different’ and having ‘always been trans’, her mother later discovered, had been lifted verbatim from the internet.

    In her new, highly combustible state, Lucy would fly into rage if her parents used her legal name — the one they had given her — or failed to use her new pronouns. In short order, her parents hardly recognized her. They became alarmed by Lucy’s sudden thrall to a gender ideology that seemed, well, a lot of mumbo jumbo, biologically speaking. Her mother said it seemed as though Lucy had joined a cult; she feared it might never release her daughter.

    I liked Lucy’s mother, the Southern lawyer, and fell readily into the story she told, but I was an opinion writer, not an investigative reporter. I passed her story on to another journalist and assured Lucy’s mother she was in good hands. Long after I had moved on to other topics for the Wall Street Journal and the lawyer was swept from my inbox, her story remained stubbornly lodged in my brain.

    Three months later, I got back in touch with Lucy’s mother and all the contacts she had initially sent. I spoke with physicians — endocrinologists, psychiatrists, those plastic surgeons who perform gender surgery, and those who refuse to. I spoke with world-renowned psychologists specializing in gender dysphoria. I spoke with gender affirming psychotherapists and those psychotherapists who believe gender affirmation is not valid psychotherapy at all. I spoke with more than four dozen parents of suddenly-identifying transgender adolescents.

    I spoke with the adolescents themselves and transgender adults to gain a glimpse of the interiority of their experience, the liberating tug of cross-sex identification. I also spoke with ‘desisters’, those who once identified as transgender and later stopped, and with ‘detransitioners’, those who had undergone medical procedures to alter their appearances, only to arrive at regret and scramble to reverse course. I conducted nearly 200 interviews.

    It turned out, Lucy’s mother was far from alone. In the last decade, across the West, gender dysphoria — severe discomfort in one’s biological sex — has spiked by 1,000 percent in the US and 4,000 percent in the UK. And while for the nearly 100-year diagnostic history of gender dysphoria, the disorder typically presented in early childhood (ages two to four) and overwhelmingly afflicted boys and men, the demographic driving the recent surge is utterly different. It is adolescent girls who had no history of childhood dysphoria at all. The more I learned about the adolescents who suddenly identify as transgender, the more haunted I became by one question: what’s ailing these girls?

    In January 2019, the Wall Street Journal ran my piece, ‘When Your Daughter Defies Biology’. It provoked nearly a thousand comments, and hundreds of responses to those comments. A transgender writer, Jennifer Finney Boylan, quickly wrote a rebuttal in an op-ed that appeared two days later in the New York Times. Her op-ed garnered hundreds of comments and hundreds more reactions to those comments.

    All of a sudden, I was flooded with emails from readers who had experienced with their own children the phenomenon I had described or had witnessed its occurrence at their kids’ schools — clusters of adolescents in a single grade, suddenly discovering transgender identities together, begging for hormones, desperate for surgery.

    This is a story Americans need to hear. Whether or not you have an adolescent daughter, whether or not your child has fallen for this transgender craze, America has become fertile ground for this mass enthusiasm for reasons that have everything to do with our cultural frailty: parents are undermined; experts are over–relied upon; dissenters in science and medicine are intimidated; free speech truckles under renewed attack; government healthcare laws harbor hidden consequences; and an intersectional era has arisen in which the desire to escape a dominant identity encourages individuals to take cover in victim groups.

    Transgender success stories are everywhere told and celebrated. They march under the banner of civil rights. They promise to breach the next cultural frontier, to shatter one more basis of human division.

    But the phenomenon sweeping teenage girls is different. It originates not in traditional gender dysphoria but in videos found on the internet. It represents mimicry inspired by internet gurus, a pledge taken with girlfriends — hands and breath held, eyes squeezed shut. For these girls, trans identification offers freedom from anxiety’s relentless pursuit; it satisfies the deepest need for acceptance, the thrill of transgression, the seductive lilt of belonging.

    As one transgender adolescent, ‘Kyle’, put it to me: ‘Arguably, the internet is half the reason I had the courage to come out. Chase Ross — a YouTuber. I was 12. I followed him religiously.’ Chase Ross was kind enough to speak to me for my book, to help me understand what’s in the sauce.
    https://spectator.us/transgender-cult-damaging-daughters/

    Like

  28. Des permalink
    September 16, 2020 10:54 pm

    Helena,two days ago I watched Loving Neverland five hours and almost everything in the documentary I’ve seen it before except of some of the things comedians and other presenters did to him and humiliating him with every opportunity they got for money and ratings,and I was thinking to myself he lived through all these and now his kids watching because I don’t think his kids or his family know or have seen everything,his fans know a lot more than anybody else for that matter. I can not imagine the rage and the anger they must be feeling and maybe a feeling of revenge because every time I see something I feel angry and empty how can humans do that to another human being I wish people not just the fans take the time and watch these documentaries and see who Michael Jackson was and what he had to live with from a very young age till the end of his life. It is good because everything (not everything) is in one place. Now coming here I read the comments too so let me say something here, I am not an educated person like most of you and English is my second language but not because I didn’t want to educate myself I wanted to be a layer but I didn’t have the opportunity neither a choice, I had two years of a secondary school and then love knocked the window of my heart I had two choices continue school or give up and follow my heart I choose to follow my heart,engaged ,married and then before I turn seventeen I was a mum only one regret I should have waited a little bit longer before married my husband.But I was a child til say fourteen innocent and learning everyday little by little and not all at once I knew I was a girl I didn’t have anybody else or read somewhere that I can be something else no confusion there I didn’t have others putting ideas in my mind I looked it my body symbol life and I wish every child including my grandchildren to have the childhood that I had I didn’t have much material things but had symbol life and love all around me and it didn’t matter that my mother was hitting me most of the time I was a trouble maker I still felt the love but I grew up we grew up my husband and I,and our world was changing around us with our children was easier when everything around us was changing the foundation was strong the love was there the kids will go out and come back home with stability I was a stay home mum till my youngest start school .But these days the children aren’t children for a long time we the society push them to grow up very fast and we expose them to too much we confusing them these little people we try to put too much on the little heads and all they want is attention and quality time love and respect for who they are don’t rush the upbringing.My oldest grandson is ten years old now but two years ago the teacher at school (a lesbian teacher)it was raining outside and the kids were having a brake inside the class after finish they lunch they start playing and been children they start blowing kisses to each other and saying I love you and my grandson and his best friend were doing the same thing and the teacher turn around and said to them (you know when you grow up you can married anyone you want you can married each other)most of the kids stopped playing and looked at each other but when my daughter picked up the kids from school the eighth year old the older was very quiet she noticed that something is not right next day he didn’t want to go to school and after trying her hardest he went to her and told her what happened he was devastated and confused she did the best she could to explain to him because he was saying I want to be like you and daddy.She spoke to the principal the teacher got the sack and later on she found out that other mums complained about the teacher without knowing she was a lesbian she was pushing her agenda to an eight years old children.Now I stay away from these discussions in public and as you know I am volunteer at Salvation Army and the core of this organisation is every body is welcome doesn’t matter black white doesn’t matter what religion doesn’t matter what sex doesn’t matter how you look doesn’t matter if you are a criminal everyone and I say every one is welcome and I believe that with all my heart but don’t ever asked me to believe that the act between two man is normal I don’t want to be educated on that ,nothing against the people just that part,what two people do behind closed doors if they both agree it’s not my business I look at my body and whoever puts us here everything we have in our bodies has his purpose for me is that symbol and love has nothing to do with it if one my grandchildren turn out to be gay nothing will change to warts my feelings for them but that part will remain the same not normal.Michaels daughter I feel she is lost she will take a long time to recover if she ever will from losing her father look at us fans and especially you people who work so hard even after eleven years of his passing the energy the time the effort the love eleven years it’s a long time people getting old life is changing their personal life’s changing but they still there fighting for the truth. I do believe that she is missing her father desperately and even if she try’s to getaway for a little bit she can’t with everything that it’s happening he is everywhere and I also can’t help my self thinking that she blames her father a little bit that he’s not here with her and I say that because even after fifty two years of my father’s death I still blaming him a little bit he was everything to me he was my hero he was fifty one when he died and I was a couple of years older than Paris but he had cholesterol and the doctor told him you have to watch your diet and don’t work in the farm when it’s hot (I grew up in a farm and everything was manual)but my father will say if I die I want to die with a full tummy and he had to work doesn’t matter rain or shine the night before I was brushing the little hair that he had and the next day he was gone and I still say why didn’t you listen to the doctor and am sure Paris sometimes she will ask that question to herself why did you have to take that risk to go to sleep didn’t you it’s dangerous didn’t you loved me enough to say no hopefully she finds peace with in herself sooner than later and stand up tall for her father she is his daughter and nothing can change that be proud and yes use your name it is your name you are his legacy. I talk too much don’t I it’s the Covid-19 restrictions

    Like

  29. Des permalink
    September 17, 2020 12:19 am

    Am sorry am back again I forgot to ask something what is the right age for gay and lesbian people to have sex I know girls that they are on the pill the minute they get the period so they don’t get pregnant and they have boyfriends is it that if they are the same age okay to have sex and what about gay people teenagers boys is it okay with the law and how a boy or a girl or people think if say a fifteen years boy or girl having a relationship with a twenty year old same sex do we call the older boy pedophile and can a young kid seperate that his older gay parents can have sex but because of their age they can’t.It is very scary it is wrong it’s not healthy and the society promoting it. We are living in a crazy world that’s why we have so many people killing them selfs .

    Like

  30. luv4hutch permalink
    September 17, 2020 1:48 pm

    Jordan Peterson IS a bigot, and he’s not joking at all. He clearly believes women are inferior to men, that birth control is wrong, that there is no such thing as marital rape, and is skirting around embracing rape apologia. He went down the rabbit hole of radicalization, of supporting positions in line with the modern jackbooted enforcers of oppression, who want take civilization back to the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition.

    Quillette is much the same, as the “articles” posted on the site are often espousing openly support for rape and subjugation, and more especially, white nationalism and “human biodiversity”, which is another name for ethnic cleansing. You’re taking support from sites that propose the very opposite of what Michael stood for, and doing a great disservice to his memory as a result. This is what Michael meant in “Black Or White” when he says “Don’t tell me you agree with me when I saw you kicking dirt in my eye.”

    Trans identity and the spectrum of sexuality has been confirmed very much as real and far more prevalent than previously confirmed. It’s only an “epidemic” because people are now finally having the courage to come out and feel comfortable to be who they are. Scientific consensus over several decades and thousands, if not millions, of researchers, has shown this to be true, same as manmade activities contributing to climate change, the force of gravity, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity. (And no, moral relativism has nothing to do with Einstein’s theory whatsoever, it’s a completely different concept.) Is there a definite reason to think there are certain people confused and attaching a label to themselves without having fully figured it out, or people who are faking for attention? Yes, unfortunately, especially because some want to have their identity confirmed without first going through years of therapy to reach that point and want a shortcut. But for more than 90 percent of people in this realm, their identities are real and valid. How do you know Paris wouldn’t have come to this realization about her identity without Michael being alive? You can’t possibly know that, but one this is for sure. Michael would never have just summarily rejected what Paris feels out of hand. In your view, Michael would essentially have taken Paris to undergo conversion therapy, one of the most insidious and monstrous processes ever devised, specifically to punish people for not conforming to the norm. It’s a flagrant and blatant form of abuse, and Michael would never have done such a thing to any of his children. Furthermore, Michael was god-fearing, but he wasn’t preachy or going thump on a soapbox to declare it. Your idea that without the vile smears on his character he would have made society as a whole “throng to the arms of the Lord” is laughable, and completely out of character for Michael. Michael did not care one whit about what other people believed or didn’t believe, as long as they were good people doing good things, so he would never have gone around trying to convert people and essentially do missionary work, especially given how he moved to distance himself from some of the more unsavory aspects of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    There is no liberal conspiracy to legalize pedophilia. There are scattered people in the guise of academics and people like Dan Reed trying to do so, and vile organizations like NAMBLA, but they are not representations of the whole. Social justice movements have completely disavowed them and even said, directly, “these individuals are sick and criminal and must be punished.” If you’re really going to take a page from Limbaugh, Breitbart, Ben Shapiro and the like, you’re really going to use the fallacious “slippery slope” argument, that “legalizing gay and trans rights will lead to legalizing pedophilia and bestiality?” It’s complete and utter nonsense and is never going to happen. Furthermore, the idea that “they’re blowing it out of proportion and taking away from more important things” is completely false. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, we’re known for fighting for different, multiple causes at the same time, and that’s because of learning from experience. Environmental concerns and equal rights for women in the ’60s and ’70s were scoffed at by many hippies and civil rights marchers, because “the real important thing is getting rights for the black people and protesting the war in Vietnam.” In many ways, we suffered for that myopia, and let things get too far for too long, and we’re frantically working to catch up. Trans people’s rights and identity go hand in hand with justice system reform, climate change action, antiwar protests, social reform, welfare reform, economic reform, and health service upgrades, especially now in the era of COVID-19. They are all cogs in the same machine.

    And I think I understand where you are coming from and why. Despite your efforts and moving to deprogram from the oppression of the Soviet era and trying to stand for truth in that region, you are still quite prone to the censored message put out by Putin’s Russia, of believing their official story, simply because a lot of it conforms to your worldview, a worldview that thinks “the Communists went too far, so going all the way to the other side is the answer”, even though you’re simply exchanging one extreme for another, with many of the same cruelties you turn a blind eye to, because it’s your side. And so when you find people and sites saying the same thing, you think of them as comrades, rather than the insidious agents of chaos and oppression they really are and that a lot of their agitation and moralizing is a complete sham and that they don’t actually believe in, because “they’re on the right side.” You join them railing against “cancel culture”, but when you give comments that Paul McCartney and Ellen DeGeneres are bad people for swallowing the Robson and Safechuck stories whole and “exposed themselves”, you are participating in cancel culture yourself, essentially moving to discredit them and anything they’ve ever done because of one thing that doesn’t negate their works and their legacies.

    Likewise, you are somewhat prone to overinflating the goodness of others as well. Saying you are prone to believe that Bill Cosby is innocent because Thomas Meserau was interested in defending him at one point. Meserau is just a lawyer, nothing more, nothing less. It’s certainly admirable that he’s gone on to defend Michael well after the trial and point out the truth, but that doesn’t make him Atticus Finch, a fictional character meant to be a paragon of goodness that is virtually impossible to achieve. Meserau has defended plenty of guilty clients, he’s not a saint by any means. Likewise, Michael was certainly a loving man, a very good man, and a figure of great integrity and honor, but he was just a man. He wasn’t Jesus incarnate, a living deity. He was just a man, with all the frailties that come with humanity, and he frequently told us this many times over.

    Does this make you a bad person? No, not remotely, but the fact that you can be so swayed by these figures is worrying, and demonstrates part of how the reach of fake news and the worrisome potential for radicalization on the Internet is quite large. I cannot in good conscience sit back and ignore it. Your work researching Michael’s innocence and discovering the ultimate forces responsible, in how it all leads to Geffen is impeccable, but your vision of everything else is quite blinkered, especially when you try to connect it to Michael himself. I will always support your work on his behalf, and I especially understand how allies of convenience are better than none at all, but we are clearly far different people with regards to anything outside of that.

    But don’t worry, I won’t be talking of things like this anymore, and it certainly won’t be worth much of your time, apparently. From here on in, it’s all Michael, all the time.

    But before I do, I want you take another look at some songs that represent what I’m trying to tell you, from people other than Michael. They very much describe what is happening with the campaign against Michael, and the world at large, quite well.

    Like

  31. September 17, 2020 6:01 pm

    “I want you take another look at some songs that represent what I’m trying to tell you”- luv4hutch

    When you make so many links your message automatically goes to spam and I have to retrieve it from there to be able to see it. This is just for your information.

    “In your view, Michael would essentially have taken Paris to undergo conversion therapy, one of the most insidious and monstrous processes ever devised, specifically to punish people for not conforming to the norm. It’s a flagrant and blatant form of abuse, and Michael would never have done such a thing to any of his children.”

    Don’t you notice that you attribute to me the words and thoughts that I didn’t even have in mind? What I really think is that Michael would have simply talked to Paris, and that’s all. I am afraid that in your agitation you are arguing with someone else, and not me.

    “when you give comments that Paul McCartney and Ellen DeGeneres are bad people for swallowing the Robson and Safechuck stories”

    Funny again. I didn’t even know that Paul McCartney swallowed the Robson and Safechuck stories. As regards Ellen DeGeneres I remember making a comment about her to the effect that if she were a real journalist she would not pass judgments on Leaving Neverland (fiction) film without first fact-checking the story. My point was that journalists, especially popular ones, are more responsible than ordinary viewers, because thousands of people form an opinion by just looking up to them.

    “Jordan Peterson IS a bigot, and he’s not joking at all. He clearly believes women are inferior to men”

    I am a woman so theoretically should be insulted by his views, but I really don’t see anything like that in his interviews and lectures. Why do you?

    Quillette is much the same, as the “articles” posted on the site are often espousing openly support for rape and subjugation.

    Over here I can’t say because I haven’t read much of Quillette, but its founder Claire Lehmann looks to me as a centrist and reasonable person who doesn’t fall into extremes. She is Australian, so is an outsider like me, and seeing Americans “lost in the weeds” (her expression) is a big surprise to her same as to me.

    She is a psychologist who describes herself as centrist:

    Lehmann, who talks slowly and carefully, with a scientific precision, describes herself as “centrist.” But like many of Quillette’s ilk, her views are not easy to locate on the political spectrum. Although she calls herself a feminist—she cites maternity leave and other “policies that focus on women’s role as carers” as issues important to her—she is very much out of the feminist mainstream, as her first forays into opinion writing demonstrated.

    “Progressive public commentators do not like to admit that marriage is actually good for women and children, or that a happy marriage is associated with better well-being, longevity and lifetime health,” went Lehmann’s first op-ed, in the Sydney Morning Herald, in 2013. She also argued that “having a male breadwinner around actually makes life a great deal easier” for women and children. Lehmann had by that time left Canberra for Sydney, where she was pursuing her graduate psychology degree [] The feedback to her initial piece, she told me, was “incredibly nasty”.

    …”We’ve [the journal] become a place where people who don’t fit perfectly into a little box or a label can feel at home and not under pressure to identify with one tribe or another,” she says. I was curious, though, if there were certain political positions Lehmann would disavow, either personally or as an editor. Lehmann says that because she is an atheist, she feels alienated from the Christian right. “I would identify with the left if they were a little more old-school in their advocacy for workers,” she allowed, “but I’m not too bothered to be aligned with a political movement.”

    But, I pressed, is she worried about extremists using Quillette articles about inflammatory matters like race and gender to validate their views? “We don’t want to be considered provocateurs,” she said. She wouldn’t want Quillette to be associated with “anything like ethno-nationalism” or “racist, bigoted viewpoints.” Ultimately, Lehmann says she can’t take responsibility for how posts will be interpreted.

    “I want to give more of a platform for people on the left who are in support of liberal values,” she says. “We want to get more conservatives who feel disillusioned with whatever conservative bubble they’re in.”

    “Sometimes there are misrepresentations, and people assume that my politics is far more right-wing than it actually is,” she says. “I think because I’m Australian, and I take so many things for granted like universal health care, access to abortion, and we don’t have guns everywhere.”

    This is a theme to which Lehmann returns: From outside the United States, she is not “emotionally invested” in American politics and so can better diagnose that country’s pathology.

    “Everyone in the U.S. is lost in the weeds. They’re focusing on the minutiae of what’s happening to Trump,” she says, or “getting upset over Nike sponsoring that NFL player. … We don’t feel the need to constantly follow what’s in the news.” Lehmann has consciously hired Canadian and British editors, and one thing that is generally absent on the site is coverage of Donald Trump. “You’ve got to inevitably choose a side in America. You can’t just sit in the middle,” says Mark Carnegie, an Australian venture capitalist and a backer of the site. Quillette is powerful, he says, because it’s “an independent media voice.”
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/11/intellectual-dark-web-quillette-claire-lehmann-221917

    This journal is just an independent media source which handles difficult and inconvenient issues, and doesn’t go with the herd, and this is exactly why it evokes so inadequate a reaction. Fury and hate are not the best advisors.

    Like

  32. September 17, 2020 6:40 pm

    “But don’t worry, I won’t be talking of things like this anymore, and it certainly won’t be worth much of your time, apparently. From here on in, it’s all Michael, all the time” – luv4hutch

    The problem is that the never-ending character assassination of Michael Jackson is directly connected with most of the issues you covered in your angry political message. My 11+ years of research and examining the subject from all sides possible has finally brought me to this conclusion.

    And the reason why many Michael’s fans can’t yet figure out why Michael is still being so heavily smeared is because they look at the problem apart from the huge cultural changes taking place in the society and the interests of some players standing behind it.

    The biggest dilemma and paradox of it all is that the forces that call themselves progressive and which therefore draw much appeal from the public, are also the ones (at least in part) who destroyed Michael Jackson. This is my firm opinion.

    I told you that you wouldn’t like my conclusions, didn’t I?

    Like

  33. luv4hutch permalink
    September 17, 2020 7:00 pm

    I’m not that angry. If anything, I’m resigned. I just felt that I had to say my piece, and that Michael’s character assassination came more from petty reasons, the reasons you gave to Geffen, not some grand overarching, Illuminati-like conspiracy with tentacles everywhere. After all, when Weinstein blackballed people and moved to destroy their careers, it was all just because of his word around town, nothing more than that. He didn’t need anything else behind him, the only thing that was behind him was Geffen’s support in aiding and abetting these crimes in exchange for chips to cash in later. And neither liberalism nor conservatism was the driving force. If anything, it was utterly non-political, non-social reasons, and mere jealousy and bitterness that grove Geffen to launch his campaign.

    But you’re certainly not going to see it that way. So, I’m not going to bother anymore. I know an unmovable object when I see one, and I just had to get everything out before it could fester into anything worse. It was catharsis more than anything.

    Like

  34. September 18, 2020 11:35 am

    “Michael’s character assassination came more from petty reasons, the reasons you gave to Geffen, not some grand overarching, Illuminati-like conspiracy with tentacles everywhere.” –luv4hutch

    In every single case someone had a personal problem with Geffen, the latter’s revenge against his adversary surpassed the boundaries of a personal conflict and took the form of a massive campaign which involved the mainstream media, numerous players some of whom were unaware of the magnitude of the plan and millions of people who swallowed the stories fed to them by the obliging media.

    Usually Geffen’s revenge took many years and developed slowly but relentlessly. The central goal was always ruining the adversary financially, and though the victim’s pits and falls seemed accidental they were actually not. This is what Geffen’s modus operandi is all about – the mechanics of revenge is unseen, people are being manipulated without realizing it, and there is never any direct evidence or traces left so that no one really suspects. Geffen man even take pleasure in gaslighting people and making them point the finger at wrong persons or finding fault with each other. Occasionally he modestly admits that someone else’s ruin was his doing, but it is always the case of a person “deserving his fate”. No wonder the author of Geffen’s autobiography called him “Operator”.

    The number of those who fell victim to Geffen’s unspeakable revenge plans is innumerable. Many of them were super powerful, but not popular (like Michael Ovitz, for example) so no one was sorry when they were destroyed. Ovitz’s case required just a series of financial deals that finally made him collapse, so the revenge was easy though it also developed slowly and took much time. However making it slow and “natural looking” may also be part of the fun.

    Michael Jackson was different. He was super popular and appealed to millions all over the world. Turning the tide against Jackson required an unprecedented media campaign and much of it was carried out – and here is the surprise – by the left-wing media over whom Geffen evidently has a lot of control. Why so?

    Remember the presidents he was great friends with and in whose election he was greatly instrumental. Geffen was Bill Clinton’s top donor and used to be so big a friend that Clinton stayed at his place whenever he was in California. When Clinton had a problem over Monica Levinsky it was Geffen who instructed him how to handle the media, which leaves no room for doubt that he has the media in his pocket.

    Geffen can make or kill politicians. After he withdrew his support from the Clintons, Hillary who initially seemed unbeatable lost to Obama and Geffen even admitted a sort of a paternal pride for Mr. Obama’s win. It turned out that it was he who told him to run for presidency and promised his support.

    Geffen [] knew that Obama was a “remarkable guy” the very first time he laid eyes on him, way back in 2004. After watching Obama deliver the keynote speech at that year’s Democratic National Convention, Geffen says he immediately pressed the Illinois politician to run for the White House.

    “After I heard him give that speech, I called him up and said, ‘You’re going to run for president and I’m going to support you.’” Geffen said.
    When Obama decided to run two years later, he called up Geffen. Geffen says Obama told the media mogul: “‘David, I guess you’re right. I am running for president and I’d like your support.’”
    Geffen’s backing would prove crucial for Obama.

    https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-geffen.html

    Why did Geffen go into politics? What was there for him that attracted him so much?
    The answer is social policy and rights of minorities in the first place.

    It all began in 1992 (the crucial year for Michael Jackson too) when according to several intimates Geffen “grew unnerved by the sway of social and religious conservatives backing the reelection campaign of President George Bush. “They were talking about an America that was about being white, Christian, heterosexual male,” Geffen said in a 1993 Times interview. “Well, you know there are people who just don’t fit into that category.”

    There is no proof that conservatives were indeed trying to make America “white, Christian and heterosexual”, but these allegations nevertheless made up the core of Geffen’s agenda and have since been hammered around by progressive forces.

    The LA Times calls Geffen and Bill Clinton “the famous allies” and says that during the Clinton era in the White house Geffen invested nearly $1.2 million in the Clintons and Democrats due to a large measure of self-interest.

    Famous allies were often at odds
    By STEPHEN BRAUN AND DAN MORAIN
    MARCH 4, 2007

    WASHINGTON — Long before the fractious public airing of their poisoned relations, the political friendship between David Geffen and Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton was an unconventional alliance with a cloudy future.
    The outspoken Hollywood mogul Geffen lavished nearly $1.2 million on the Clintons and other Democrats during the Clinton White House years, gaining extraordinary access to the president while hosting the couple at intimate dinners at his Malibu beachfront home and sleepovers at his estate in Beverly Hills.

    But their relations were in constant flux. Intimates of the two said that flashpoints surfaced often: Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. The president’s scolding of Hollywood after the Columbine school massacre. The Monica S. Lewinsky affair and Clinton’s impeachment. And finally, the 11th-hour flurry of controversial pardons that excluded a convicted murderer whose release Geffen had championed.
    Their alliance was marked by genuine affection, colleagues say, and a large measure of self-interest. Whether its meltdown has any lasting significance remains to be seen, but Geffen’s recent broadside against the Clintons left the political world agape.
    Aimed chiefly at Hillary Clinton, who was mostly a bystander to the friendship, Geffen’s waspish comments to a New York Times columnist gave voice to the kind of sentiments — that she is polarizing, dishonest, far too ambitious [ ]

    Geffen first joined forces with Bill Clinton in 1992, soon after becoming a billionaire from the sale of his record company to MCA. Nearing 50, he was about to openly acknowledge his homosexuality.
    Several intimates said he grew unnerved by the sway of social and religious conservatives backing the reelection campaign of President George HW Bush.
    Conservative Pat Buchanan’s call to arms for a “cultural war,” and his mocking that Democrats were radicals posing as moderates in an “exhibition of cross-dressing,” nudged Geffen toward a high-profile role in funding the Clinton ticket.

    “They were talking about an America that was about being white, Christian, heterosexual male,” Geffen said in a 1993 Times interview. “Well, you know there are people who just don’t fit into that category.”

    …Geffen didn’t attend the inaugural festivities. But he joined Clinton at an economic summit in Los Angeles. The agenda was dry financial policy — not Geffen’s cup of tea. But the invitation from the White House had thrilled him.
    The associate said that Geffen openly admired Clinton, but at the same time [ ]he wasn’t a showoff about it … you didn’t see him dial him up in front of other people to show what kind of access he had.”

    Geffen had joined a rarified group of Hollywood liberals shepherding millions to campaign coffers, including director Steven Spielberg and film executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, who would become Geffen’s partners in founding DreamWorks SKG, the film studio.
    One former White House aide said Clinton was particularly “star-struck” by Spielberg and Katzenberg, and eagerly rubbed elbows with them. He roomed overnight at their sumptuous Los Angeles homes, in the Hamptons and in ski country. Geffen opened his beachfront home to Clinton and, on occasion, the first lady.

    Several former Clinton aides and fundraisers said that although Geffen could be counted on to open his checkbook, he was prickly and not easily pleased. White House aides “thought of him as high-maintenance,” said one Clintonista. Another called him a “whiner.” A veteran fundraiser watched Geffen stand on a dining room chair at one event to lecture top Democrats on social policy.
    “He’s a passionate guy, and he’s not cowed by anyone,” the fundraiser said. “He’ll give you anything you ask for if he thinks it’s in his interest. And he’ll decide on a dime to dry up that support if he’s mad at you.”

    Friendship tested

    Almost from the start, Geffen’s presidential friendship was tested by political tensions of the day. Once elected, Clinton retreated from a promise to allow acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the military. Instead, he adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of letting gays remain in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation quiet.

    Geffen helped bankroll a media campaign led by gay activists to pressure Clinton.

    “No one in Hollywood did more on gays and lesbians in the military than David Geffen,” said David Mixner, an old Clinton friend. But Clinton stuck with his compromise. For gay leaders like Mixner, this led to a severing of ties. Geffen remained a Clinton ally.

    “He consciously decided he didn’t want it to be a rupture point,” an associate said. “David’s tendency was to get mad, but he realized he had larger fish to fry, and why give up a good relationship?”

    …Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky in 1998 and the impeachment crisis that followed was another test of Geffen’s loyalty. At the time, associates say, Geffen privately advised Clinton on how to deal with the media and the public. “They were still close, and they spoke,” one Geffen colleague said. “They discussed the issues that were confronting the president.”

    But Geffen’s outlook on Clinton “began to sour,” the colleague said. Clinton had also found a new pal in Los Angeles: supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, a political supporter who became a close personal friend.

    During one of Clinton’s visits to the West Coast in 1999, according to a California Democrat, Geffen insisted that Clinton stay at his home even though Geffen would be out of town. Clinton spent much of the evening at an event at Burkle’s 8-bedroom, 13-bath mansion in Beverly Hills, but then dutifully went around the block to neighbor Geffen’s estate (8 bedrooms, 9 baths) for the night.

    In April 1999, after the Columbine High School rampage, Clinton surprised Hollywood by ordering a commission to investigate how the entertainment industry marketed violent video games to teenagers.
    DreamWorks called it “finger-pointing,” and Geffen questioned what he perceived as the administration’s failure to press hard for tougher firearms controls.

    No special favor

    As the Clinton presidency neared its end, Geffen also pressed for a favor. He had become a supporter of a campaign to win a presidential pardon for Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist serving a life sentence in the shooting deaths of two FBI agents in 1975 at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Peltier’s advocates say he was wrongly convicted.

    According to Geffen associates, DreamWorks corporate spokesman Andy Spahn contacted the White House three times on Peltier’s behalf, and Geffen spoke to Clinton about it. Clinton associates recalled only that there were “general contacts.” Clinton was “noncommittal,” a Geffen intimate said.

    Geffen’s disappointment turned to ire when he learned who did win pardons. They included Marc Rich, a wealthy commodities trader who had fled to Switzerland after he was indicted in 1983 for tax evasion, and convicted Los Angeles drug dealer Carlos Vignali, whose case was pressed by Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother.

    Several Geffen intimates say he was most angered by a Time magazine article quoting Clinton as telling friends that his denial of the Peltier pardon showed he had not traded pardons for money. “David Geffen will barely talk to me!” Clinton reportedly said.

    “That sent him up the wall,” an associate said of Geffen. “He had a thing about people who used him to prop themselves up.”

    Their friendship dissolved overnight. The DreamWorks executive sent a final $800,000 to honor his pledge to the Clinton library, but that was his last stipend. Geffen remained a loyal benefactor to other Democrats.

    Geffen shut down his donations to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and began saying she had no future as a presidential candidate.
    “She can’t win,” Geffen said during a public forum at the 92nd Street Y in New York in 2002. “She’s an incredibly polarizing figure. I think ambition is not a good enough reason.”

    By then, Geffen had met with a new Senate hopeful, Barack Obama of Illinois. DreamWorks’ Spahn had been impressed and urged the two men to meet, so Geffen invited Obama to his Malibu home for a private dinner with several other Democratic Party supporters.
    “They hit it off,” Spahn recalled.

    Meanwhile, Geffen had ended all contact with the Clintons.
    According to one Clinton intimate, the former president tried to keep the relationship alive. “He called a bunch of times, but Geffen never called back,” the Clinton associate said. “Eventually, he stopped trying.”

    https://www.latimes.com/la-na-geffen4mar04-story.html

    Like

  35. September 18, 2020 11:36 am

    This LA Times article is actually a good illustration of the fact that if someone denies Geffen a favor, the latter turns into the person’s most implacable foe. So it is enough to reject him once and your career is finished.

    Moreover, it was Bill Clinton who didn’t do as Geffen wanted him to but it was Hillary Clinton who had to pay for it, as Geffen publicly denounced her and shifted his support to another person. Obama looks like a very nice guy but since Geffen is still friends with him, he evidently didn’t disappoint Geffen like Clinton did.

    Personally I was very much impressed by the scene of Geffen standing on a dining room chair and lecturing top Democrats on social policy. So his enormous influence on the US social policy is undeniable, same as his hatred for conservatives.

    As regards the issues that interested Geffen most, Michael Jackson was a conservative due to his upbringing and religious views – a conservative who at some point became terribly afraid to hurt the feelings of his progressive “friends”.

    I still remember the look of fear on Michael’s face when Martin Bashir asked him: “Are you gay?”

    Michael went visibly tense and said he would answer only if Bashir stopped the camera. When I first watched it I thought that he was indeed gay and simply didn’t want to come out of the closet. But then I saw the outtakes and Michael actually said there something like “I am not gay, but I don’t want to speak about it not to hurt the feelings of my gay friends”.

    But why was Michael was terrified to say that he was not gay? Why did he look so afraid?

    Because one of the “friends” he was talking about was most probably Geffen and this explains the look of panic on Michael’s face.

    Like

  36. luv4hutch permalink
    September 18, 2020 12:12 pm

    Well, I guess I have just one more thing to say about this after all.

    Have you even LOOKED at what the conservative movement in America is these days? It is explicitly about gutting and rolling back civil rights, restoring Jim Crow, and propping up white, heterosexual, Christian males. About re-criminalizing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, gutting Social Security, allowing fossil fuel producers to ravage the planet with abandon, to allow money to further corrupt the political process, and to stack the courts with judicial activists taking the guise of “originalists.” Pat Buchanan said so himself back in 1992, when he declared what we refer to as the “culture wars.” The “Moral Majority” is neither, but they’ve been so subsumed by the Republican Party and they feed each other relentlessly. The GOP IS about subjugation and dominion, and casting apologia for them is quite ludicrous. Geffen knew this was happening, but as we can see, he never actually believed in those principles, he just played them to the hilt. He abandoned the Clintons well before 2000, and has even abandoned Obama, and he’s firmly in Trump’s corner these days.

    The “liberal media” is a total myth. It’s been a myth ever since Nixon’s defenders used to explain how he was driven out of office. ABC, NBC, CBS, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Huffington Post et al are owned by corporations, whose focus is on the bottom line and earning revenue. They turned the news into about clickbait and gotcha moments, and false equivalency. Corporations are not seeking “progressive brownie points,” if anything, they smear Democrats and hold them up to a higher standard than Republicans are held to. After all, dozens of press reports called on Clinton to resign for lying about a blow job, but they refuse to call Trump’s 20,000 false statements since taking office lies, and give him a pass for so much blatant corruption and self-dealing, and for 26 women claiming that he sexually assaulted them, that would’ve killed any other presidency.

    During the 2000 campaign, they castigated Al Gore as a “phony exaggerator” for claiming things he never said. They falsely said he claimed to have invented the Internet, to have discovered the toxic waste dump at Love Canal before anyone else, and so many other things, EVEN when they’d reported on these things and told the truth YEARS BEFORE. They focused on the optics of Gore sighing during the first debate with George W. Bush, and claiming that he was being arrogant and calling Bush the winner, even though people initially said Gore won based on the logic. If there was a “liberal media”, Gore would not have been bashed so relentlessly, all the while treating Bush with kid gloves, referring to him as “someone you want to have a beer with”, and completely ignoring what his campaign was advocating, and if they ever did focus on him, fleetingly, it was merely for his frequent and comical fractured syntax. A “liberal media” would not have treated the campaign in this manner, and because of this media gaslighting, it helped enable the blatant stealing of the election in Florida. Likewise, they wouldn’t have focused on Hillary Clinton’s emails for so long, and given Trump so much free coverage, to the point of showing AN EMPTY PODIUM for 90 minutes, while showing virtually none of her campaign rallies. Or the focus on her health, or whether she was “likable”, instead of the grave danger Trump posed. Nor would they have kept framing climate change and evolution as a “debate”, when there is no debate and scientific consensus has proven both. I’ve studied and personally observed what has happened for years, and it shows very much that the media is toothless and without conviction, nor driven by ideology. The only “ideological” sources are the Murdoch outlets, all for the right, and MSNBC, for the left, and even it doesn’t go far enough, and even tries to court conservatives a bit too often.

    You are right that Geffen has a definite hold on the media and has them in his pocket, but it’s not because of “liberal values” and indoctrination. It’s based on what serves his best interests and who’s on his enemies list. At some point, the Clintons proved themselves to be not as pliable as he thought, so he turned his wrath on them, and Gore. He focused on Obama, but Obama is also not that pliable, their friendship is actually in tatters, but they won’t admit it. So now, Trump is the one Geffen wants to control and he’s the best hope he’s got. Geffen, if anything, was playing both sides during the ’90s, advising Clinton, but then telling the press to focus on the scandals, all but one of which were manufactured out of whole cloth, and the one that wasn’t was blown well out of proportion so that it no longer resembled what actually happened. He helped make the press focus on everything the Clintons did under the sun, because he’s calling in chips to use. This is evidence of his bitterness and depravity, but it’s not fueled by political ideology. He doesn’t have any. He only pretends to, then discards it when most convenient. This gives a full round of explanation of what happened to Michael. It doesn’t require politics or “progressivism” to explain it. Especially when there is no real “liberal media” in America, hence why many of these “liberal” faces went on the attack.

    Again, there is no grand liberal “New World Order” coming out, and American conservatives, who are not actually conservative but in truth “regressives” who want to turn back the clock socially, are the ones wanting to destroy America and foist a dangerous order that might very well bring humanity to the brink. If you were in America and seeing it for yourself, you might realize what’s happening. But in an area still under the sway of the disinformation of Putin’s Russia, which the GOP has cravenly embraced, it’s hard to see what’s happening. Russian disinformation operations, be it from RT, or anonymous troll farms, or GRU, or whatever, have employed this quite effectively, and the GOP wants in. In many ways, so did Geffen, probably.

    I’m not that angry, despite what you might think, nor do I think you are a bad person. But the fact you are willing to go along with such credulous forces and so many wolves in sheep’s clothing like the Milos, the Stacy Dashes, the Michelle Malkins, the Jordan Petersons and the Quillettes of this world, just because they mouth words about “protecting children” is incredibly dangerous. While they certainly have points here and there, the fact remains, they are not true allies, not even allies of convenience. They are the real monsters trying to reshape the world in a dangerous light. And the fact that you associate these people with someone like Michael Jackson is worrying, because they are the very forces Michael was working to defeat, no matter what their beliefs were. It does a great disservice to his memory and his message.

    Like

  37. September 18, 2020 4:55 pm

    “you are willing to go along with such credulous forces and so many wolves in sheep’s clothing like the Milos, the Stacy Dashes, the Michelle Malkins, the Jordan Petersons..But in an area still under the sway of the disinformation of Putin’s Russia, which the GOP has cravenly embraced, it’s hard to see what’s happening.”- luv4hutcch

    You keep dropping names many of which are totally unfamiliar to me. I have heard of Milo and listened to Jordan Peterson (whom I liked) but I have no idea who the others are. As to the disinformation of Putin’s Russia, this is something I am perfectly aware of and know much more about it than you ever will. This is the reason why I don’t watch our TV and have never relied on our media sources. The views I express here are mine and mine alone, and have nothing to do with “Putin’s Russia”. As to Geffen I never hear his name mentioned in my country at all.

    “Have you even LOOKED at what the conservative movement in America is these days? It is explicitly about gutting and rolling back civil rights, restoring Jim Crow, and propping up white, heterosexual, Christian males. About re-criminalizing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade …”- luv4hutch

    No, I haven’t. And I have no time or intention to do it. I speak of ‘conservatism’ in lay terms, as opposed to ‘progressive’ thinking which amazed me by its focus on transgender issues which have suddenly become one of the major matters of concern for your people.

    All I can say is that you don’t know what real problems and real violations of human rights are. If you knew, your interests would be completely elsewhere. You have apparently enjoyed your civil rights for so long that you got bored with them and now just invent problems out of thin air in order to heroically fight them.

    The word ‘conservatism’ sprang to my mind when I read about Paris Jackson’s confusion about her gender identity and I was astonished to find that there are 29 gender identities in the US now in addition to ordinary “male” and “female”. And that college students are required to state their gender identity and pronouns they prefer to be called after enrollment. And if he or she prefers to be called ‘they’ this will be sort of mandatory for all others and not calling them the preferred pronoun will be ‘bigotry’, ‘transphobia’, ‘breaking their civil rights’ and probably even the law (?)

    To me the whole thing is insanity. An insult to common sense and a big insult to those people who are indeed denied the most basic human rights, up to the right to live and be alive. To me it looks like a make-believe game where some make-believe ‘activists’ fight for some make-believe ‘human rights’.

    This is when I found that I am abhorred by all this ‘progressivism’ or whatever it is (you choose the right word) and that I must be a hard-core conservative. And also probably an ‘ultra-right’ or even worse, according to your terminology.

    In my opinion I am just being reasonable. Despite the things those make-believe scientists tell you, biological sex does exist, and Joanne Rowling was perfectly right when she said something to the effect that males don’t have periods while females do.

    And the notion that a child, sometimes beginning with age 5 (!) may feel him\herself in the wrong body is ludicrous, because at that age children do not even realize what it is like to “to be in the right body” and none of them ever think about it. Imposing it on a small child is a CRIME and making the child “choose their gender identity” as a mandatory rule by whoever introduced it is a DOUBLE CRIME. Actually educational institution should stick to their business of educating students and not confuse them with all this transgender ringmarole.

    As far as I can see most of these ‘studies’ are based on the inner feeling of a child – whether the child plays with dolls or cars, feels comfortable/uncomfortable among his or her peers, plays boyish or girlish games, etc. But firstly, the boyish and girlish roles are imposed on us by society which may decide that all girls should be like Barby and if the girl likes climbing trees something must be terribly wrong about her gender identity. Or if a boy cries, he must be living in a girl’s body.

    But Michael Jackson also often cried, so does it mean that he was a girl?

    People who still possess some common sense with tell you that there are a million reasons why a child may feel uncomfortable among his\her peers. The boy is bullied in the school yard and is ridiculed for being too “girlish” as he doesn’t fight back and prefers to play the violin? But it doesn’t mean that “he was born in the wrong body”. All it means is that he should be taken to another school where he will find friends who will share his interests, and he will eventually grow into a normal male – unless you insert crazy ideas into his head of course, about him having a different gender identity.

    And who is there to decide what kind of activity is right for girls and right for boys? Don’t you see that those who make these ‘transgender studies’ and impose all these rules actually abuse children and violate their natural right to a normal childhood? The normal childhood Michael Jackson always stood for!

    And what is this ‘inner feeling’ of a human being? If I for one feel like I am a thousand years old (and I truly felt that I was very-very old even in my childhood), does it mean that I am really 1000 years old? And what if a 50-year old woman has an inner feeling that she is a naughty teenager? Does it mean that she is really a teenager?

    Let us be consistent then and make the “trans-age” studies too and categorize people not by their biological age, but by the age category they perceive themselves in. And question college students about their inner age feelings, placing their ‘inner’ age into their documents. And if a student feels like a 65 year old, making him entitled to a pension already. Otherwise it will be the violation of his rights!

    Up till now my conservatism has been limited to only this transgender craze as this was the first thing that caught my attention, especially since it concerned Paris Jackson in some way. If I find other conservative features in my beliefs I will make a separate comment about it.

    You are right that Geffen has a definite hold on the media and has them in his pocket, but it’s not because of “liberal values” and indoctrination. It’s based on what serves his best interests and who’s on his enemies list

    But this is actually all we need to know about Geffen. Whether liberal or conservative, all it boils down to is A, B, C and D:
    A. Geffen does have a hold on the media.
    B. If it is in his interests to destroy someone, he had every possibility to do so via the media and many other ways.
    C. He is intent on destroying everyone who is perceived by him as an enemy.
    D. Geffen did have a fall-out with Michael Jackson and apparently perceived him as an adversary. Even if we don’t know what Michael himself said about Geffen ruining his career, we still know of Geffen’s feud with MJ due to their abrupt severing of all ties with each other after the many years of close “friendship” and cooperation.

    This way the above falls into an easy formula: D = A + B + C.

    The only thing we don’t know for sure in this equation is why the fall-out took place. Michael thought that it had to do with what he called “Hollywood’s Gay Mafia” which he believed sank his career.

    And this again takes us to Geffen’s views. So point E in this equation is actually politics.

    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: