Skip to content

THE KEY PLAYERS behind ‘Leaving Neverland’ Operation

December 29, 2020

Three days before the official trailer for “Leaving Neverland” was first released to the public on February 19, 2019, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote her review of the film setting a sort of a standard for other mainstream media to follow.

Maureen Dowd should not be confused with Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair who dedicated her life to smearing Michael Jackson. Maureen Dowd is the Pulitzer Prize-winning op-ed columnist who is “arguably the most powerful journalist in America thanks to her must-read column in The New York Times”.

To show how powerful she really is it’s suffice to mention that just one column of hers written in February 2007 ruined the chances of Hillary Clinton for presidency and projected the career of Barack Obama as a Democratic nominee who would later win the elections.

Let me repeat – it was Dowd’s just one column that changed the US political climate forever.

And on February 16, 2019 she reviewed the Leaving Neverland film, just several days before some of its footage was to be shown to the public for the first time.

A month prior to that the film premiered at the Sundance festival and those present had already sent shock waves throughout the world, however its TV premiere was to take place only on March 3 and 4, so Maureen Dowd’s opinion of the film was kind of setting the scene.

One would imagine that a journalist whose word people hang on as if it were the gospel, would be wary of making rash conclusions and warn others that unless proven by facts the assertions of two individuals are worthless.

However this was not the case. In the very headline of her column Maureen Dowd denounced Michael Jackson as the King of “perversion”, presented the film as fact and instead of asking appropriate questions about its legitimacy redirected everyone’s attention to “how could we be so blind?”

Her review abounded in words like “lair”, “monster”, “rapist”, “apparent criminality”, “shredded lives of victims”, “tragedy” and the like.

The King of Pop — and Perversion

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

February 16, 2019

When Dan Reed ordered up a score for his documentary, he asked the composer to evoke the image of a shimmering sprite leading two boys deeper and deeper into an enchanted forest. The boys don’t notice that the trees grow menacing. And suddenly, the sprite turns into a monster.

As “Leaving Neverland” shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.

It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters — Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer — many turned a blind eye.

Celebrity supersedes criminality. How can you see clearly when you’re looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?

It was easier to ignore a landscape designed as a spider web for child sexual abuse than to give up the soundtrack of our lives, the catchy songs that coursed through memories of weddings, bar mitzvahs and other good times.

“With Michael Jackson, you can see how grotesquely his fame, and our worship of fame, distorts and excuses and enables evil — to the point mothers fail to protect their children and literally throw them in harm’s way,” says Maureen Orth, who did groundbreaking stories in the ’90s for Vanity Fair about both Jackson and Allen.

Indeed, the most harrowing part of the new documentary about the shredded lives of two of Jackson’s victims is the complicity of their mothers. Jackson spent as much time grooming the mothers as the sons, to the point where the women saw nothing wrong in letting their children share a bed with a grown man. (The documentary, which left the audience stunned at Sundance last month, premieres on HBO next month.)

Reed is a Brit who made several documentaries about terrorism. He says he became practiced at leading victims gently back to their traumas, so they could use their minds as cameras to bring key moments to life, letting their faces and voices tell the stories.

And that is how the tragedies of James Safechuck and Wade Robson unfold, through the pain in their eyes and the confusion in their voices and the moments where they tear up or swallow hard.

Safechuck, who works as a computer programmer, was raised in Simi Valley. He met Jackson when he was a 9-year-old child actor in 1987, starring with the singer in a Pepsi commercial. Jackson promised to make the boy the next Spielberg.

Robson, a dance teacher who did choreography for Britney Spears and ’N Sync, grew up on the other side of the world in Brisbane. He spent all his time dressing and dancing like Jackson. He won a dance contest in 1987 and got to meet Jackson, who was on tour in Australia, and dance onstage. Then, he was ensnared in the warped fantasy, a 7-year-old being initiated into sex at Neverland by the 31-year-old Jackson.

The mothers, Stephanie Safechuck and Joy Robson, knew that Jackson was ensorcelling their sons, even as he lured the mothers out of the frame with luxurious enticements. But they were stage mothers and fans, so they chose to believe Michael was a kind, lonely little boy at heart, not a heartless pedophile, and they did not dig deeper when their sons said nothing bad was going on.

“He flies you first class, you have a limo waiting for you at the airport, amazing, you know, it’s a life of the rich and famous,” Mrs. Safechuck gushes in the film, adding: “I got to meet Sean Connery. That was big for me. It was like, ‘Oh my God, Sean Connery!’” She also loved Neverland: “He had a beautiful wine cellar, really good wines, champagne, that was just something I enjoyed — it was a fairy tale every night.” After all, as she says, he was a genius and they were “just nobodies.” Jackson bought them a house after James testified on the singer’s behalf in a trial involving another boy.

It somehow made sense to James’s mother when she was told that she couldn’t be near the hotel rooms her son and Michael shared in Europe because the nicer suites she would prefer were farther away.

As Wade Robson puts it, “What you’d think would be standard kind of instincts and judgment seemed to go out the window.”

His mother left Australia and his father and moved to L.A. with Wade and her daughter to be closer to Michael; the father later committed suicide. After Wade finally told a therapist and his wife and family what had happened, he was alienated from his mother for a time. Like James, Wade — who lied in court twice to protect the man he loved — had symptoms of trauma that intensified with the birth of his son. James’s hands shake as he shows a diamond ring that Jackson gave him for a private mock wedding. Wade had a nervous breakdown and stopped dancing for a time.

“I had one job” and messed it up, Mrs. Safechuck says. “My son had to suffer for me to have this life.”

Even with this shocking documentary, the Michael Jackson estate is still demonizing the victims and planning to bring a musical about Jackson’s life to Broadway in 2020.

Reed says he is “agnostic” about it: “Am I going to campaign to have Michael’s name removed from classrooms and his statues removed from shopping malls? No. Is this the right time to celebrate Michael as a legitimate good person you might want to emulate? Possibly not.”

And that is what’s known as British understatement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

That kind of opinion coming from the NY Times, the pillar of American journalism, and from its well-respected columnist, must have sounded like the final verdict for the majority of readers – and many would probably not even go beyond the headline. A few rare voices of protest were heard but were drowned in the almost universal wailing and shaming that ensued.

These rare voices of reason included David Walsh from a socialist site which criticizes liberals from the left. He called Maureen Dowd’s review “disgusting” and expressed his amazement at the universal acceptance of the unsubstantiated claims by the American media. For him Michael Jackson is a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry that went over him like a bone-crashing machine (correct).

Here are some excerpts from David Walsh:

 “A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor. … the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim; those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned. The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.”

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible.

Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery. … There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.”

Full text: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Even a bigger number of sensible voices came from the more conservative spectrum including Piers Morgan, John Ziegler, Razorfist and others. Radio host Mark Davis, for example, looked into the root of the problem and asked for the proof of those claims, saying that without it the film was “no journalism but activist filmmaking” with an agenda to smear Jackson.

The shocking Michael Jackson documentary deserves to be seen, but can it be believed?

By Mark Davis

6:09 PM on Mar 7, 2019 GMT-6

The makers of the new Michael Jackson documentary may not have envisioned the reaction it sparked in me: I am more open to his family’s denials than ever.

…my problem is with the heavy-handed one-sidedness of the entire spectacle. This is not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. It is activist filmmaking with an agenda —  the desire to paint Jackson as a serial child molester.

This is not illegal, or even unethical. Michael Moore had no obligation to film contrary views in his Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11. But no one should rely on Moore for an even-handed assessment of the subject matter.

Leaving Neverland brims with the shocking stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom recanted their charges in the 1990s. Robson even testified on Jackson’s behalf in 2005. This does not mean they are lying today, but nor does it guarantee that their newfound desire to share should be treated as gospel.

The film buries viewers in stories of bizarre scenes and actions, but even those do not mean the victimization described took place.

The accusers are not under oath. They have gone public for money after their lawsuits against the Jackson estate failed. But my biggest obstacle to believing them involves Jackson himself.

There is nothing in the behavioral catalog of pedophilia that includes building an amusement park in the yard. Real child molesters tend to be guarded, insular and so pathologically concealed in their sick aims that they usually look like guys you could see in line at a hardware store. I find it easier to believe that Jackson’s eccentricities were not the product of a man who lusted for children, but a stunted man clinging to his own lost childhood. But again, I have no proof either way.

And ultimately, consider the numbers. The total of mega-rich, famous people who have provably festooned themselves with the trappings of childhood in order to lure kids into sex: zero. Meanwhile, the number of liars spurred by profit motive to fabricate stories about famous people: too many to count.

This is not an argument that the documentary is a pack of lies; it is a suggestion that it is a wholly unworthy basis for a firm conclusion of Jackson’s guilt.

Mark Davis is a radio host and frequent contributor to The Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show airs from 7 to 10 a.m. weekdays on KSKY-AM (660). 

Full text: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/08/the-shocking-michael-jackson-documentary-deserves-to-be-seen-but-can-it-be-believed/

So while the establishment media universally condemned Michael Jackson on the basis of stories alone, the rare voices from the outside asked for facts to substantiate the claims, without which the film is no documentary but is just activist film-making with an agenda to paint Michael Jackson as a monster.

The exceptions only prove the rule as they highlight the existence of a rule, and this is how the few voices that contested the official narrative made it apparent that the establishment media is actually heavily biased against Jackson and has exactly the same agenda as the two accusers.

This has been clear to us for a long time already and the only thing that required clarification was the reason why. This post will try to look into that.

THE PERSON WHO DETHRONES KINGS

Maureen Dowd’s right-wing critics are perfectly aware of her one-sided reporting and remind her that journalists are expected “to balance their sympathies and opinions with their obligation to present events in the most accurate way possible” – the reproach that fully applies to Dowd’s headlong accusation of Michael Jackson of things she and no one have absolutely no proof of.

Dowd’s critics point to an interesting episode in her career that sheds the light on the way she ruined Hillary Clinton’s chances and on who was the real driving force behind her column and the political earthquake that followed.

It turns out that the person who dumped Hillary Clinton’s nomination was the same person who, according to Michael Jackson himself sank his career too.

Yes, the name of that person is David Geffen.

From the political point of view Hillary Clinton as Geffen’s victim and his choice of Barack Obama as a new favorite are not that important to us. What is important is the way Geffen handled Hillary’s crash, the gigantic power he enjoys in American media and at the top tiers of American politics, his ability to turn public opinion overnight by his choice alone and his connection with Maureen Dowd who in both cases was a means to achieve his goals.

All these factors are extremely relevant to Michael Jackson’s case too, because if Geffen could overturn the career of politician No.1 just by making a few remarks to a journalist, he could easily do the same to the No.1 star in the entertainment industry too.

Actually, the fact that it was Geffen who busted Hillary Clinton is well known to the American public, but few know the details, so here they are coming from the book “Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

The old Jack Warner house sat on Angelo Drive at the top of Beverly Hills. Built in the thirties, it now belongs to the billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen.

On the night of February 20, 2007, Obama was there for a private dinner in his honor. Earlier that evening, Geffen and his partners in DreamWorks SKG, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, had hosted a $1.3 million fund-raiser for him at the Beverly Hilton, attended by some three hundred members of the glitterati. From the time the event was nnounced, it had drawn notice, signifying that at least a portion of Hollywood, including some longtime backers of the Clintons, was attracted to Obama.

After the fund-raiser, a more intimate group of thirty-five retired to Geffen’s mansion, spreading themselves out across three tables. Among them were Michelle Obama Spielberg and Katzenberg, former Dinsey and Fox studio head Joe Roth, William Morris Agency chairman Him Wiatt, Walk the Line writer and director James Mangold, Sleepless in Seatlle producer Lynda Obst, and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. 

As the dinner wound down, Geffen approached Obama, holding a printout of a Web page with a column by Dowd that would be appearing in the next day’s Times. The piece was all about Geffen’s disenchantment with the Clintons. It contained harsh words, and lots of them, that would reverberate through the political world for months. Handing it to Obama, Geffen said, “I think I should show you this.”

Geffen and Dowd were a colorful pair of friends – a mischievous dyad, each with a long and complicated relationship with the Clintons. Coquettish and flame-haired, Dowd was liberal but never earnerst or doctrinaire [] She had won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, for a series of columns that folded, spindled, and mutilated Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Geffen’s relationship with Clinton began to change toward the end of Bill’s White House years. Before that, the mogul and the president had been tight, the former raising millions for the latter and sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom more than once. Clinton would phone Geffen all the time – at home, in the car, late at night – and would often stay with Geffen when he was in Hollywood.

Now, as Geffen showed the text of the column to Obama, he wondered how the candidate would react. Obama read it, gave Geffen a wide-eyed what-have-you-done look, and laughed. This is going to cause some conversation, Obama said dryly. They’re not going to be happy with this.”

The Dowd column was explosive, all right. It went off like an atomb bomb inside Hillaryland.”

Please note that the book calls David Geffen and Maureen Dowd a colorful pair of friends. What followed as a result of that friendly collaboration was described as “a Hillary blaze”:

Dowd started a Hillary blaze in February of 2007 by revealing that David Geffen, the Hollywood record mogul and key Clinton supporter, was switching allegiances to Obama.

At the time Clinton was considered a virtual shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, but the fissures which emerged after Geffen’s comments in Dowd’s column would never close over and heal.

As Patrick Goldstein wrote subsequently in the Los Angeles Times, “When historians start looking for turning points in the trajectory of the Obama campaign for the presidency, they will inevitably turn to February 21, 2007, the day that The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ran a column where Geffen blasted then-Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. 

It is worth noting that as usual, Geffen’s involvement in the game is downplayed by all those concerned and he himself plays the role of a modest bystander whose word is insignificant as “no one’s interested in what he has to say”.

In fact, each time I mention David Geffen as the ultimate power behind dumping Michael Jackson’s career and explain it by their difference of opinion over some issues, I am told that a certain dispute between them was too “insignificant” a matter for Geffen to turn his ire and vengeance against Michael.

Well, exactly the same was said about Geffen when he made some remarks for the NY Times column. There was certainly “no danger” to anyone because of Geffen’s “insignificant blip”:

Obama advisers described the Geffen remarks as an insignificant blip and said they saw no political danger in letting them stand.

But the power of that insignificant blip was such that it turned the American primaries upside down and the near-nominee who seemed invincible and even inevitable was replaced almost overnight by a person of Geffen’s choice.

“…back in the winter of 2007, Hillary wasn’t just the front runner–she was considered inevitable. The entire Clinton campaign was based on a sense of her invincibility.

Geffen broke the spell. Having soured on the Clintons after raising huge sums of money for Bill and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom–twice–Geffen found himself enamored of Obama from the first time he saw him on TV, giving a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “I thought he was a remarkable guy,” Geffen told me today. “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 says Obama laughed and said he was very flattered, but that he wasn’t running.

Cut to two years later. “He called me one day and said with a laugh, ‘ David, I guess you’re right. I am running for president and I’d like your support.’ And of course, I said, ‘You have it.’ “

… how did Dowd get Geffen to finally go public with his complaints about Hillary? Keep reading:

Some time before, Geffen was a speaker at the 92nd Street Y in New York. When someone asked about his take on the Democratic presidential aspirants, the billionaire mogul didn’t mince words. “I said that Hillary was an incredibly polarizing figure and that if she ran, she’d never be elected president,” he recalls.” Maureen was in the audience and afterwards she said to me, ‘We oughta do a column about that.’ “

Geffen says he wasn’t ready. “I said, ‘No, no, no. No one’s interested in what I have to say about the Clintons.’ But she kept after me and finally, when Steven, Jeffrey and I had the fundraiser, Maureen cornered me and said, ‘You have to say what you’re thinking. It could have a real impact on the race.’ So I did.” Geffen sighs. “What can I tell you–I was just speaking the truth.”

His remarks caused a media uproar. The comments were front-page news in Washington, D.C.

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

Oh, I absolutely love that part about Geffen remonstrations: “’No, no, no.  No one’s interested in what I have to say” as well as Maureen Dowd’s “cornering” Geffen at that fundraiser after which the latter allegedly gave in to her with a “sigh”.

Well, we do remember that there was no need to corner Geffen at that fundraiser as by the time it was organized the article in the NY Times had already been printed and was ready to see the light of day the next morning.

What all of the above amounts to is that when kingmaker David Geffen supports someone, his favorite is sure to triumph. And if he withdraws his support and scams to dethrone the one who fell into his disfavor, the latter will be busted and trampled upon.

And the person who masterminded it all will stay behind the scenes and pretend that he has nothing to do with it or that his opinion does not matter.

So does anyone still think that Geffen would refrain from doing something similar to destroy Michael Jackson in order to get even with him for a slight remark about the Bible (for example), or rejecting Geffen’s passes as rumor has it, or both?

CLOSE FRIENDS

The events regarding Hillary Clinton took place in 2007, and the article below is dated 2010 and while it reiterates everything we already know about those past elections it also confirms that several years later the friendship between David Geffen and Muareen Dowd still flourished.

The article was written in connection with Obama’s inauguration ceremony for his second term of office and it refers to Geffen’s Dreamworks as his top fund-raisers, Geffen being “very close” friends with Obama’s administration, and at some point also quotes Geffen saying that Maureen Dowd is a close friend of his.

JUN 25, 2010 

Let there be no doubt. David Geffen loves the Obamas. The billionaire entertainment mogul, an active Democrat and one of the industry’s savviest strategists, writes that rumors of his disenchantment with Barack Obama are “made-up nonsense.”

As a sign of Geffen’s alleged disenchantment, political wags also note that the mogul was not prominent at the inauguration and did not meet with Obama when he visited California in March.

But Geffen writes in an e-mail response, “There is not a word of truth in what is being said.” He points out that he was not in the country when Obama last visited Los Angeles, and writes, “I was not interested in being there for the inauguration festivities, nor did I attend them when Clinton was there.” Geffen did attend a Dowd party on inauguration eve, because “she is a close friend and I was the guest of honor.” But he adds, “I left that night.” Concludes Geffen: “I love the Obamas,” adding that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “is a very close friend.”

Andy Spahn, who serves as political adviser to Geffen and his DreamWorks co-founders, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, also calls the speculation “completely off the wall.” He says that during Obama’s presidential campaign, “David, Steve, Jeffrey and I were the President’s top fund-raisers nationally,” and still are.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/billionaire-entertainment-mogul-david-geffen-loves-president-obama-article-1.180809

When four years later, on June 10, 2014 Maureen Dowd and a few selected journalists were invited by the NY Times to a special event honoring the most powerful opinion-makers, David Geffen was certainly present to hail his old friend Maureen Dowd there.

Dowd placed the photo of her, Barbara Walters and David Geffen together on her Twitter account:

Previously we knew of only one Maureen – Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair whose list of anti-Jackson articles is also somehow connected with Geffen as only recently it was decorated with his photo as if with a medal.

Until only recently the collection of Maureen Orth’s articles about Michael Jackson ended with a photo of David Geffen (now removed). Was it a tribute to the sponsor?

And now we are also aware of the long and nice cooperation between David Geffen and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times whose friendhip has spanned at least 13 years by today – which explains very well why she joined the 2019 hate campaign against Michael Jackson and actually set the tone for all other media on how to perceive the “Leaving Neverland” film of lies about him.

However there is one more person to be included in the tight circle of Michael Jackson haters and this time it is Maureen Dowd who is dropping the name.

ANOTHER NAME

Dowd made her revelation in September 2009:

Sep 10, 2009

…Dowd admits her interview with Geffen changed the presidential race forever, and she is grateful to Geffen for standing by his comments.

Dowd rates Geffen as one of the few wise men left in a bleak economic landscape. Recently she asked him his opinion of the current climate.

“I was on business in Los Angeles and I had lunch with David Geffen and Oprah, and he knows a lot about money. He got out before the crash.” She also asked him why he was the only one of his DreamWorks studio partners — Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg the others — not to get caught up in the Madoff scandal, and Geffen said simply because the two others did not call him.

“So he called them and he said, ‘Why didn’t you give me that tip? I would have told you not to do it, but you didn’t give me that tip.’”

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/the-secret-side-to-maureen-dowd-58485922-237658781

Oh, here is another familiar face and this time it is Oprah Winfrey!

In fact, Geffen seeks collaboration with Oprah every time he needs her support over something of extreme importance to him – for example, the documentary film about himself called “Inventing David Geffen”. The caption to this photo of them together says that the documentary was released in November 2012 and that Oprah joined the exclusive dinner after its premiere as Geffen’s date.

“At a Spago dinner after the premiere of “Inventing David Geffen,” some feelings were hurt when organizers apparently kept some of Geffen’s pals off the list. Geffen himself arrived with date Oprah Winfrey and claimed to have nothing to do with the dinner guest list”.

And now Oprah Winfrey amazes us by the fact that she was in close association with Geffen already in 2009, and their friendship that seemed to have flared up only recently is actually long and standing the test of time.

So on some occasion in 2009 Maureen Dowd was on business in LA, coming all the way from New York, and joined Geffen and Oprah at lunch (lunches in Los Angeles and Hollywood are almost solely the only time and place where business is discussed).

The date of the above article is suspiciously close to the time of Jackson’s death and funeral but this is when the article was written, while the visit could be much earlier, of course. The only reliable marker for it is the Madoff financial scandal that took place in mid-December 2008 and lasted well into 2009 and even longer.

So it was quite probable that during that visit the three of them were discussing money with Geffen who apparently advised the two leading media personalities on how to invest it.

And ten years later we see the same trio again, only this time it was Geffen who was seeking the two journalists’ support.

Maureen Dowd has shown hers by powerfully denigrating Michael Jackson in her powerful column. Her part was to stigmatize him as a monster well in advance and influence the minds of millions even before they saw the film or even its teaser. Her business was to distract public attention from the total lack of evidence from the two guys and support their weak stories – that also recanted their earlier versions – and while people were still in shock at what they were told to also focus their attention on “How could we be so blind about him?” instead of asking “Where is the evidence, guys?”

And Oprah Winfrey’s part was to promote the film further which she eagerly did at her show special after the film TV premiere on March 3 and 4, 2019. Her aftershow was broadcast simultaneously by HBO and Oprah’s channel “OWN” and took place the same night as the conclusion of the film. Oprah hosted director Dan Reed and the two accusers who further elaborated on their lies to a big audience of genuine sexual abuse survivors – apparently, for better effect and more emotional impact.

But that was on March 4 while Oprah got familiar with the film much earlier, right after its premiere. And the circumstances under which she first saw it were quite bizarre, to say the least.

The thing is that a couple of days after the film debuted at the Sundance film festival on January 25, 2019 David Geffen invited Oprah Winfrey to his yacht on a three-day visit there. The official reason for the inivitation was Oprah’s birthday (January 29).

For some reason Geffen happened to have his personal copy of “Leaving Neverland” and sometime after the birthday cake he treated his celebrated media guest as well as her associate Gayle King to the four-hour long entertainment movie.

You will agree that the very idea of showing a film about the alleged sexual abuse survivors at anyone’s birthday party sounds ludicrous enough, and the fact that the guests had to enjoy this kind of entertainment for four hours too makes you wonder even more. So the version that this was really entertainment can be ruled out and this leaves us with the only other option that it was common business instead.

Geffen’s part in that business could be connected with its production (otherwise how could he lay his hands on its copy?) besides the general idea and possible inspiration for it, and Oprah’s part, as I’ve already said, was apparently its further promotion and providing her TV show as a platform for the two guys to continue with their story.

Now that we know that each of the trio implemented their roles perfectly well, it is easy to see through the original plan too. And the fact that all three participants are also close friends only adds to our certainty that their coming together for a character assassination of Michael Jackson is not a mere coincidence but a well thought-out operation.

In fact, now I even begin to think that Oprah’s interview with Michael Jackson in February 1993, just on the eve of the Jordan Chandler scandal, could also be part of someone’s plan.

75 Comments leave one →
  1. luv4hutch permalink
    December 29, 2020 10:44 am

    Maureen Dowd has always hated the Clintons since ’90s, and she effectively led the way in the media’s relentless pursuit of them for everything under the sun. She also was a cheerleader for the War in Iraq.

    She so hates the Clintons, she actually stumped for Trump in 2016!

    https://www.mediamatters.org/search?search=Maureen+Dowd

    https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/new-york-times-maureen-dowd-writes-yet-another-anti-clinton-column

    So, if anything, Democrats have always known how despicable she is and want her gone. But this is America, baby. And if lead Iraq War cheerleader Judith Miller is incapable of disappearing and still pumping things out, then Dowd is untouchable. This shows the main problem that the “liberal media” is a caricature that doesn’t really exist.

    https://www.wisconsingrassroots.net/how_to_debunk_the_liberal_bias_myth

    Like

  2. nan permalink
    December 30, 2020 12:02 am

    The story , above shows how the standards, of “journalism , have Fallen, and either infected, or maybe just Exposed , how it all really works..
    I think the estate, should refer, to this article , for their, lack of concern, for facts , because they just fell in love , with the story, and ran with it.
    Won awards too…

    Maureen Dowd , has always, been a hired gun/pen for, hire ..masquerades, as a serious journalist,

    Not surprised, she was n the picture , with , Geffen , and Barbara Walters , , who, set, the stage for he Bashir piece , giving him credibility/cover.

    It’s makes sense , that Trump used the NationalEnquirer, , , in a similar way, to smear his enemies ,back, when he was just a shady businessman , and continued to use them, against Clinton during, the campaign..
    The Times, is no different , from that rag.
    Sees thats, how business is done
    Servants /parasites for the powerful
    Seems MJ knew that too.
    Must have been terrible for him

    As far as Geffen, when GayleKing started tweeting, from the yacht , to kick off this attack, and Reed, immediately retweeted, it , and people called It, out, Taj Jackson seemed, imo, to agree, with your conclusion, about this group..
    So much went into completely annihilating MJ AND his estate, that I think , branca , also, was meant to have his power cut in the entertainment business..
    Don’t think Geffen .likes Branca either

    As far as them, sitting around, watching ,these p…, fantasies, played out for 4 hours , on a yacht, I think they probably got more like a summary, from some minions ..
    I doubt Oprah watched 4 hours of garbage
    She is far too self centered ,
    A minion, wouldn’t realize the train station, didn’t exist back then, but Oprah/gayle would have , and they would have had that removed ..’instead Oprah got intense backlash, even on the DAILY SHOW , where she was , put out,,, really pissed , she got called out

    We have seen the court papers asking , for open arbitration, in advance of the judges ruling , because the estate knew they have a massive p.r. Campaign , still, to protect , all these people, with intertwined livelihoods and reputations..
    Now that is is going to arbitration, I hope it is public

    Thank you for all you do, I always read along..
    Happy new year ❤

    Like

  3. December 30, 2020 5:04 am

    “So much went into completely annihilating MJ AND his estate, that I think , branca , also, was meant to have his power cut in the entertainment business..Don’t think Geffen likes Branca either” – Nan

    He doesn’t, and this is why the storm of criticism and hate which came over John Branca after Michael Jackson’s death should have made anyone with critical thinking wonder why that campaign was so sudden and so intense. I did look into all the arguments of Branca critics but the more I looked the more I realized that for the most part it was slander and that someone was fanning it on purpose (while the majority swallowed the bait, alas).

    The reason for all that hate is that Geffen clashed with Branca in 1990 when he was out to grab full power over Michael Jackson’s business, finances and ultimately life, and the old team of Michael’s advisers had to be ousted by all means possible. This is when Frank Dileo had to go and John Branca too.
    The LA Times wrote about it in March 1993:

    “Like “Lawrence of Arabia,” Geffen can be a pretty steely character beneath the polished exterior. Friends and enemies, of which he has plenty, say there’s precious little upside to crossing him. In Hollywood, Geffen has a well-known reputation for meddling in other people’s business dealings, though it usually comes at the behest of one of the principals.
    Such bare-knuckled offensives are usually played out in private, but a few years back Geffen’s hand was plainly evident in Michael Jackson’s cold and swift dismissal of lawyer John Branca and manager Frank Dileo in favor of the Geffen-friendly combo of Bertram Fields and Sandy Gallin. Geffen was serving as Jackson’s informal adviser at the time.

    During his most critical moments in life Michael turned to Branca again and again, and it did help, but each time somebody behind the scenes pulled some strings to ruin their cooperation. This tenacity in hate is Geffen’s hallmark feature – if he is at war with someone he will not relent until the person he perceives as a foe is done away with.
    Geffen did it to many of his associates, many of whom supported him throughout his life – like Steve Ross, for example.

    “Geffen’s power feuds over the years have involved some formidable foes in the insular world of entertainment, including the late Time Warner Chairman Steven J. Ross, Creative Artists Agency Chairman Michael S. Ovitz and fellow record executive Irving Azoff.
    At the same time, Geffen is surrounded by a core group of high-powered friends with an almost familial loyalty. Over the years there has been persistent speculation that Geffen and his friends would go in on a movie studio or network after his MCA contract expires, but Diller looks for him to put his money elsewhere. “His interests are far more varied and interesting than that,” Diller says. “He’s a student of the world.” https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-03-07-ca-7919-story.html

    The above was said in 1993. Since then Geffen has entered politics in order to pursue his own interests in it. And his interests are no less, no more than changing the world.

    To do so he is playing people like chess – using them like pieces of different value in the game, turning the tide against his rivals or unwelcome persons who stand in the way, manipulating the media, creating whole movements and terminating them when his goal is fulfilled, and much more.

    Like

  4. Nan permalink
    December 30, 2020 6:04 pm

    https://thegrio.com/2020/12/27/oprah-sells-own-stakes-discovery/

    That’s not much money , for the league Oprah was supposed to be in..
    Maybe she thought trashing MJ would revive her popularity,I think, it hurt her..
    I really think it made Oprah and Gayle, look like servants

    I agree, Branca stood in the way of Geffens agenda.
    And Branca is the person Wade, seems , to blame for his, humiliation, of being passed over, after his bragfest , about getting the MJ show
    So try both have hatred of Branca in common..

    I think he was trying to make it seem, that Branca, was stringing him along, with the shows , until , he ran out of time , to file against the estate , although, I could be misunderstanding, why his lawyer keeps talking about him , having a contract ..
    Although, if his claim, is Branca , was trying to protect the estate , then , he is , once again admitting , he knew about the estate ..‘ just goes round and round

    Like

  5. December 31, 2020 5:13 am

    “Maybe she thought trashing MJ would revive her popularity” – Nan

    In my opinion what Oprah thought about her participation in smearing Jackson did not even matter. When you are friends with Geffen you have no choice – you either do as he asks you to or you turn into his foe which is akin to suicide.
    All those friendly with Geffen have learned their lessons from what he did to others and that any favor on his side will have to be repaid double one day. And that if you don’t meet his request you will certainly regret it.

    Geffen’s association with Bill Clinton, for example, is a perfect illustration of his modus operandi. Clinton refused Geffen’s requests on two occasions only and Geffen didn’t take his revenge on him solely out of convenience for himself – the first time it was when Clinton became President and Geffen put up with the “slight” as Bill could still be useful to him during his term of office. And the second refusal came when Clinton was leaving the White house and was sort of out of reach for his powerful supporter. BUT Geffen took his revenge on Bill’s wife instead.

    This LA Times article is a long read but it explains a lot – how and why Geffen forms his relationship with politicians, how he bankrolls media campaigns for (or against) the agenda of his choice, how he advises even presidents on how to handle the media, how big a part Hollywood and its key figures play in influencing public opinion and making the US domestic policies, etc.

    Famous allies were often at odds
    By Stephen Braun and Dan Morain
    March 4, 2007
    Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

    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. [ ]
    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 has since retreated into silence. He declined to comment for this account, as did spokesmen for both Clintons. But others who know the principals well described the arc of the star-crossed friendship. Most would only speak anonymously, fearful of risking Geffen’s legendary ire and political retribution from the Clintons.

    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, “David 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.

    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?”

    Geffen took care not to neglect the first lady. He co-chaired a January 1994 banquet for AIDS Project Los Angeles where she was feted for her support of AIDS programs. Geffen intimates say that he saw Hillary Clinton as a benign figure on the periphery of his friendship with the president. “She wasn’t a political candidate then; she was the first lady,” a Geffen colleague pointed out.

    Bill 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.

    Still, Geffen joined Spielberg and Katzenberg that May in hosting the Clintons at a fete in Beverly Hills. While tenor Andrea Bocelli serenaded the attendees, more than $1.5 million in checks was written to pump up the Democratic Party’s 2000 Senate campaigns. One of the new candidates was Hillary Clinton.
    If Geffen had become skeptical of the first lady, it didn’t prevent him from backing her. Geffen donated $2,000 to her campaign and $13,000 to party political committees that aided her. Geffen also promised $1 million toward the planned Clinton library in Little Rock, Ark., and sent $200,000 as a down payment.

    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.
    A pardon was a long shot. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (DS.D.) was opposed, and more than 500 federal agents and their families protested outside the White House.
    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.
    When Clinton denied Peltier’s petition, Geffen told an aide, “This guy’s a politician; you know what they’re like.”
    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.
    “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 shut down his donations to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and began saying she had no future as a presidential candidate. His recent criticisms of her were not the first.
    “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

  6. nan permalink
    December 31, 2020 12:40 pm

    That’s a very interesting article , as I recall, Oprah catching flack, for backing OBama , given he was running against a woman and her entire career , seemed, to supposedly be about empowering and uplifting women., that she would even take a side, even if she didn’t think she could win ., was sticking her neck out..

    But she supposedly Supported HIm, because he was black and from Chicago..
    You could be right , that Geffen was behind her endorsement..
    Maybe she got her marching orders from him..
    She has always wanted to be big in Hollywood, not just Chicago.., but as an actress and player..

    Makes me wonder , who decided it was a good idea, for MJ to do, an interview and with Oprah..and at that time.
    It would make sense, he would give Oprah a black woman, a great opportunity, .
    But I wonder , how it came to fruition in the first place , and given the kind of distain , she displayed to MJ yet loyalty to Weinstein, and others, after, just makes you wonder..
    Maybe there was an agenda behind that too, given how chandler, was talking about others behind it as well.

    Her supposed platform, for hating MJ, is that she is supposed to be a survivor herself , but I’ve always questioned that as an embellishment..
    And frankly , given how readily , she used. A roomful of AFTUAL survivors ,without even researching the lawsuit brought by RObson /Safechuck , , never mind having first hand knowledge, that train station didn’t exist for many years after, the fact, makes it all the more questionable, that she would have so little regard , for using those people, as props..
    A real web, of deceit ..

    Like

  7. December 31, 2020 4:26 pm

    Happy New Year, all people of integrity!

    The Letter to Santa from Vasya in Moscow:

    Rough translation:

    Hello Santa, here is the boy Vasya from Moscow writing to you.
    It’s not cold here, it’s not hot, the tinsel is hanging from the lanterns,
    We desperately need a gift, Santa, bring it as soon as possible.

    They say you’re kind and intelligent, nothing is impossible for Santa,
    Give us a good, new, real and fresh Internet.
    I, my sister and mother, my grandmother, my father and the whole country,
    want it to be uncensored and without spam, without spin and shit.
    In social networks, forums and in the Live magazine, and on Facebook.

    Please bring us people with normal brains, at least a hundred more,
    And of course we all, from pensioners to children, ask you to give us
    Other topics for our newspaper news.

    Don’t give us toys and porcelain sets, no gift cards and candy,
    Give us new TV, the old one is showing only nonsense.
    We don’t need too much, no.

    I understand that this is hard to promise,
    But give us just a little bit of good police
    Just to see what they could be like.

    Well, as a joke or an experiment,
    Give us Santa, a new president in a new box,
    The one that has not been used.

    A decent person, with a date and a seal, under a warranty and with a check,
    So that he could be handed back in case of fault.
    Let him be intelligent, honest and handsome like in the movies.
    The one given to us long ago has already been boroken by us.

    You are kind, bearded and with a red nose,
    Please don’t forget about gifts for us,
    Let someone throw them into your magic box

    And tomorrow, right at the beginning of the day,
    Please put a new and good me under the Christmas tree
    Not stupid, calm and hardworking, working well and radiating good
    The one that will be no different from the new others.
    Awaiting your reply
    Signed: Vasya, the boy of 30 years old, Moscow.

    Like

  8. January 10, 2021 11:27 am

    It no longer surprises me that the Western media were in cahoots in their bias and attacks against Michael Jackson.
    The same is being done now, in an even more open way and against a much more prominent person at that.
    Now there can’t be any doubt that a similar worldwide campaign was possible against Jackson.

    The view from Eastern Europe:

    Russian dissident Alexei Navalny blasts Twitter for Trump ban
    By Jon LevineJanuary 9, 2021 | 6:01pm | Updated

    Russian dissident Alexei Navalny offered a lengthy denunciation of Twitter’s decision to permanently ban President Trump saying that it appeared to be “based on emotions and personal political preferences.”

    Navalny, a ferocious Kremlin critic, only narrowly survived after he was poisoned in August with the nerve agent Novichok by agents of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He spent more than a month in recovery at a Germany hospital in Berlin.

    “I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship,” Navalny said in an 11 part Twitter thread. “Don’t tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone (not that I ask for it).”

    “Of course, Twitter is a private company,” Navalny continued “But we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.”

    The freedom fighter warned that authoritarian nations would look at the decision by Twitter and use it to justify similar crackdowns of dissenting voices in their own countries. https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/russian-dissident-alexei-navalny-blasts-twitter-for-trump-ban

    [StalinGulag: What a shame was to ban Trump. Like our f—g Roskomnadzor
    Vasya Oblomov: 100%]

    Rough translation of Vasya Oblomov’s message:

    I believe that the social network in this story has taken incredibly too much upon itself. It is a faceless, neutral platform that sells ads amidst the messages of popular users. Trump may or may not be bad, but more than 70 million people voted for him, and he’s the incumbent president of a country whose messages are public. He did not call on anyone to kill, cut or rape, etc.
    If he broke the law and said something illegal, in the legal state this should be dealt with by specific law enforcement agencies relying on the law, and not an unnamed admin in the Silicon Valley on the basis of “community rules” that are often interpreted to please the political views of the owner of the social network. After all, it is ludicrous to claim that Trump’s tweet that he would not attend the inauguration was a call to violence.
    I was surprised to find that many in Russia are somehow happy that Trump was banned, explaining that he is a moron and generally a very bad person. But what would you say if Biden lost, would disagree with the election results, write exactly the same thing, gather a rally – would he be banned?
    It’s not about the candidates, it’s about the situation in principle.
    After all, the truth is that freedom of speech is either for everyone or for no one. Otherwise, it’s not freedom.
    And it is even better to end with a phrase attributed to Voltaire:
    “I don’t agree with any word you say, but I’m willing to die for your right to say it.”

    Like

  9. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 11:42 am

    What happened was an attempt at a coup, an insurrection meant to overturn the lawful results of an election. And the media didn’t accurately describe Trump or his supporters for far too long.

    https://pressrun.media/p/trumps-final-disgrace-and-how-the

    Like

  10. January 10, 2021 12:13 pm

    Luv4hutch, here is for your attention from someone who “experienced” history:

    Like

  11. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 12:53 pm

    Sorry, but no. The crowd that stormed the capital building were traitors, pure and simple, there to overturn the results of a lawful election, and potentially even kidnap or kill Congresspeople and Senators just for certifying Biden’s electoral victory. And Trump and his people fanned the flames with dangerous rhetoric that fanned the flames, as has continued all the way back when Trump talked about “Second Amendment people” taking care of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    It all is following in the footsteps of when people like Netanyahu made speeches and doctored photos of Yitzhak Rabin in Nazi uniform, denouncing him simply for working to attempt to make peace with Arafat and the Palestinians, which led directly to Rabin being assassinated.

    If anyone is moving to commence in the actions the picture represents, it is the right-wing, anti-masker, Trump Train, QAnon people, seeking with their actions to turn America into a fascist banana republic.

    And the media has been fluffing Trump for far too long while going on the offensive attacking Democrats for anything and everything and policing their tone, while letting Republicans off the hook for advocating a coup.

    If America WERE socialist, Twitter would be government-owned, and they wouldn’t ban Trump, because his rhetoric would be considered “state actions.” But because Twitter is privately owned, they can react how they please; if anything they didn’t go far enough because they’ve coddled hatemongers to drive its traffic for far too long. They and Facebook have amplified and nurtured right-wing figures, not censored them. The reason Trump is banned is because of capitalism, not in spite of it.

    Freedom of speech is not the same thing as “freedom from consequences.” Freedom of speech protects you from the government trying to stifle you; it does not mean employers can simply leave you alone or hold you accountable, or people pointing things out and doing likewise.

    If you’d even been remotely interested in looking at American life and politics, you’d see this was true.

    Like

  12. January 10, 2021 1:18 pm

    “If America WERE socialist, Twitter would be government-owned []but because Twitter is privately owned, they can react how they please”- luv4hutch

    Again, many of those “experienced” in history will have a different take on the matter. Here is one more message to you from Eastern Europe, just as an example (rough translation) :

    It’s total f—g hell.
    Yesterday, Twitter permanently blocked Trump’s account with his 88 million followers.
    Also slashed were the accounts of Trump’s campaign staff, the YouTube channel of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, the tweets of former Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn, lawyer Sidney Powell, who wrote about the election fraud, the twitter of the radio host-conservative Rush Limbaugh. The official reason are the following two tweets:

    – “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

    – “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

    Twitter believes these messages should be viewed “in the broad context of other events” as a way to mobilize his supporters prone to violence. Twitter assumes that Trump could provoke violence this way.

    Formally, Trump did not violate any rules of the social network, the decision was made on the basis of assumptions and interpretations only. Funnily enough, Twitter saw violence in Trump’s tweets but found no violations in the accounts of Iran’s leaders, who recently decided to destroy Israel by 2041.

    Simultaneoulsy with Twitter’s ban Google removed the app of the largest conservative social network Parler, Apple promised to do the same if within 24 hours the owners of the application do not introduce strict moderation. Apparently, it means blocking Trump and his supporters.

    I watch with sadness as Russian liberals, who consider themselves Democrats, clap their hands and celebrate the victory over Trump. “Twitter and Facebook are private companies and they are not obliged to provide anyone with a platform to speak! They don’t want to see Trump in their home – they have every right!”

    It’s time we stopped and looked around where we are going and what a beautiful world we are building.

    Social networks and messengers monopolized communication between people. Today it is impossible to communicate and properly work if you are not on social media. It is difficult to start a business and promote it. When it comes to politics, you can’t win elections without social media today. Promotion of your ideas, communication with supporters, calls for a rally – all this cannot be done effectively without social networks and modern media. Today it is not necessary to kill an undesirable politician, it is enough just to disconnect him from the Internet and block all means of communication for his supporters.

    Trump was just thrown into the oven. All that is happening is, of course, an attack on freedom of speech, on competitive politics, on all those values that we used to consider as the basis of democracy.

    Someone will argue again that Trump was bad, that he was spreading conspiracy theories, twisting his not-so-smart supporters, which eventually resulted in the capture of the Capitol and the deaths of five people. Trump deserves a virtual death, but still death!

    But even if Trump is an asshole, I will say that no one can be executed without a trial. Such a decision should be made by court alone. Especially since no one seems to have any doubts about the independence of the American judicial system. And now we are in a world where the decision who to throw in the digital oven, and who to pardon is not taken by court, but by some hipsters from California. This is a world in which an undesirable politician, behind which millions of voters stand, can be removed at a staff briefing at Starbucks.

    We are well aware of what state censorship is. It is disgusting and unacceptable, it must be fought. But can there be corporate censorship? Why is it bad if something is forbidden by the state and normal if the same is done by a private company? If you were f—d by the state or by a corporation, what difference does it make? You’ve been f—d anyway. You will keep your mouth shut and will still be in fear of expressing your opinion. And if you can argue with the state, how can you argue with corporations? No one has voted for them, they don’t answer to anyone.

    The censorship of corporations is often scarier than the state censorship, because society does not have clear tools how to influence them. In the end, what is good and what is bad is decided solely by several corporations in California.

    And here it turns out that the freedom of a private company to throw overboard a dead passenger goes against the fundamental freedoms of speech and competitive elections. Can a competitive election be considered competitive if one of the most popular politicians is deprived of the opportunity to communicate with the electorate?

    Yesterday, the world became less free.
    https://varlamov.ru/4153079.html

    Like

  13. January 10, 2021 1:34 pm

    Let us call a spade a spade. Welcome to censorship, guys!

    [rough translation]

    The problem is not only in Twitter. Trump was banned on all popular social platforms. And he could not physically violate all user agreements there. So that’s not the point. If something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then that’s the duck.
    It’s censorship.

    Well, at least now we are not alone 🙂

    Like

  14. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 1:58 pm

    Trump is not being censored. He’s being held accountable. He fomented hate and division, and basically advocated violent upheaval, especially at the rally that occurred right before the mob charged into the Capitol Building. This is the direct result of comments like “lock her up”, “Second Amendment People”, and many other comments.

    He broke one of the main rules of Twitter: no hate speech. And yet, until now, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and many other sources have never properly enforced them, because they rely too much on the ad revenue and clicks brought forth by right-wing figures. If anyone is being censored, it’s the left-of-center figures, who actually are being deplatformed and demonetized just for saying “abortion”, “gun control”, “gun”, “weapon”, “vagina”, “atheism”, and so on.

    That “experiencing history” argument is a double-edged sword. You don’t know what is truly happening here in America. Not just because you don’t live here, you don’t have to live in a place to know what’s happening. But you don’t take the effort or time to educate yourself and read what is actually happening from the knowledgeable sources. You choose instead to read only right-wing blogs and Twitter/Facebook posts, never a wide spectrum of news. Despite their very real problems, especially where Michael is concerned, places like The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, Rolling Stone, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, MSNBC are far more reliable than the sources you choose.

    And for keeping things in check, especially seeing where misinformation comes from, sources like the Columbia Journalism Review, Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy In Research, Daily Kos, Slate and PressRun are the places to look.

    And leaving aside all that, take the time actually read a variety of books, or just do cursory investigation.

    You don’t do any of that, you just stay in your echo chamber, and despite your hatred and disdain for Putin, you are still very much in thrall to his disinformation, simply because it corresponds with your worldview, especially about progressives, LGBT, the media, and warped perceptions about America. You don’t know, you don’t know what you don’t know, and you’re happy to stay where you don’t know, because it ticks all of your boxes.

    Never mind that much of the violence in America has often come from the right-of-center. Timothy McVeigh considered himself a “patriot” standing up against an overzealous government just for gun control when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, exacting vengeance for the federal government’s actions at Waco; even though the gun control offenses were just part of the story, and they were taking on a religious cult.

    Eric Robert Rudolph bombed Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta because he saw the Games as promoting a “Socialist New World Order, as told by John Lennon in ‘Imagine'”, then also firebombed lesbian bars and abortion clinics. He was also a white supremacist.

    Employees at Planned Parenthood locations and abortion clinics are harassed, hounded, shamed, and even killed by “pro-life” figures, and yet despite their claims, they don’t advocate anything for the children after they are born, and basically say “once they’re out of the womb, they can go fuck themselves.”

    In your eyes, people on the right that commit these offenses are solely lone wolves that are “disturbed and need our attention”, but every left-of-center figure is exactly the same as Jim Jones, because “he said he was socialist, therefore everyone like that is like him.” Never mind that the people at Jonestown were more accurately murdered, not committing suicide. You’ll say “but that’s not what I’m saying at all. Where did you get an atrocious idea like that?” You don’t have to say it; your words are still heavily implying this, laced with dog whistles that lead in this direction. You can’t wriggle your way out of it. This message is implied by what you already do say, you don’t have to say the rest directly.

    Your tarring of America and of an entire political line of thought simply does no favors and completely undermines your defense of Michael, because everyone will simply look at you as a raving, paranoid conspiracy nut, the same type of person raving about flouride in the water, microchips under our skin and alien autopsies.

    I know there are other people on this blog who feel the same way. They just have not said anything because you are frightening them away with your intransigence and narrow-mindedness.

    If anyone else reading this feels the same, stand up and make yourselves heard, I implore you. I know some of you did stand up when I went to demonstrate the problems of Helena’s support for Milo, Michelle Malkin and Stacey Dash.

    Like

  15. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 2:04 pm

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/10/2007880/-Sharyl-Attkisson-and-Full-Measure-are-pushing-the-Big-Tech-is-censoring-Conservatives-lie?utm_campaign=recent

    Someone’s got it in for me, they’re planting stories in the press

    Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out but when they will I can only guess

    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy

    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me

    I can’t help it if I’m lucky

    People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act

    Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts

    Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at

    I couldn’t believe after all these years, you didn’t know me better than that

    Sweet lady

    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth

    Blowing down the backroads headin’ south

    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth

    You’re an idiot, babe

    It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

    I ran into the fortune-teller, who said beware of lightning that might strike

    I haven’t known peace and quiet for so long I can’t remember what it’s like

    There’s a lone soldier on the cross, smoke pourin’ out of a boxcar door

    You didn’t know it, you didn’t think it could be done, in the final end he won the wars

    After losin’ every battle

    I woke up on the roadside, daydreamin’ ’bout the way things sometimes are

    Visions of your chestnut mare shoot through my head and are makin’ me see stars

    You hurt the ones that I love best and cover up the truth with lies

    One day you’ll be in the ditch, flies buzzin’ around your eyes

    Blood on your saddle

    Idiot wind, blowing through the flowers on your tomb

    Blowing through the curtains in your room

    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth

    You’re an idiot, babe

    It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

    It was gravity which pulled us down and destiny which broke us apart

    You tamed the lion in my cage but it just wasn’t enough to change my heart

    Now everything’s a little upside down, as a matter of fact the wheels have stopped

    What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good, you’ll find out when you reach the top

    You’re on the bottom

    I noticed at the ceremony, your corrupt ways had finally made you blind

    I can’t remember your face anymore, your mouth has changed, your eyes

    don’t look into mine

    The priest wore black on the seventh day and sat stone-faced while the

    building burned

    I waited for you on the running boards, near the cypress trees, while the

    springtime turned

    Slowly into Autumn

    Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull

    From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol

    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth

    You’re an idiot, babe

    It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

    I can’t feel you anymore, I can’t even touch the books you’ve read

    Every time I crawl past your door, I been wishin’ I was somebody else instead

    Down the highway, down the tracks, down the road to ecstasy

    I followed you beneath the stars, hounded by your memory

    And all your ragin’ glory

    I been double-crossed now for the very last time and now I’m finally free

    I kissed goodbye the howling beast on the borderline which separated you from me

    You’ll never know the hurt I suffered nor the pain I rise above

    And I’ll never know the same about you, your holiness or your kind of love

    And it makes me feel so sorry

    Idiot wind, blowing through the buttons of our coats

    Blowing through the letters that we wrote

    Idiot wind, blowing through the dust upon our shelves

    We’re idiots, babe

    It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves

    Like

  16. January 10, 2021 3:44 pm

    “But you don’t take the effort or time to educate yourself and read what is actually happening from the knowledgeable sources. You choose instead to read only right-wing blogs and Twitter/Facebook posts, never a wide spectrum of news.”- luv4hutch

    Dear, I take very much effort to educate myself about the US now and even read a lot of books about it. But the sources I quoted were not me. These are various Russian liberally-minded bloggers who are extremely conscious about censorship in my own country and are therefore on the alert for similar things taking place in the US. If anything, I would suggest that you listen to their voices. They mean well.

    “Your tarring of America and of an entire political line of thought simply does no favors and completely undermines your defense of Michael”

    Interesting … I am not tarring America in the least and am just extremely surprised by the events there. And, shall I say that due to Michael Jackson I’ve become sensitive to what is happening in your country? Because if it were not for MJ I would not have even looked and couldn’t have cared less.

    But speaking about Michael Jackson the current situation around Trump has made it absolutely clear to me that an orchestrated nationwide smear campaign against Michael Jackson was perfectly possible. With all those “respectable” sources like the NY Times, CNN and others taking part. If they could make so massive a protest against the elected president, they could perfectly do the same against Michael.

    Not a single doubt is now left.

    “I know some of you did stand up when I went to demonstrate the problems of Helena’s support for Milo, Michelle Malkin and Stacey Dash.”

    I did quote Milo on a couple of occasions, when he spoke about pedophilia in Hollywood. But who are the two other people and what did I “say” about them?
    And you stood up against me and demonstrated my “problems”? Thanks for telling me!

    Like

  17. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 4:00 pm

    I mentioned them before:

    Michelle Malkin has made comments supporting the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, even though she is of Asian descent herself, and is an apologist for war crimes aplenty, such as Abu Ghraib.

    Stacey Dash is a token accepted the Republicans to say “racism is not an issue anymore, there is no police brutality going on, blacks now want to be superior to whites,” and on and on. Basically, she is the very epitome of an Uncle Tom.

    And Milo DOES NOT CARE about pedophilia. He simply does not. All he is is a gadfly and bully, who says nothing constructive and wants to be a martyr to say “Help help, I’m being oppressed” when nothing of the sort is happening. He has no morals, no conscience, no love for anyone other than himself. He is a narcissist, and a likely sociopath, plain and simple.

    Did I say the sources of the Russian blog posts were you? No, I did not. But I pointed out that you don’t go beyond your comfort zone, to take a full examination of everything, especially to tackle complex issues.

    What happened to Michael was inexcusable, and every media outlet should be ashamed. I fully agree with that. The point I’m saying is that that one incident is not representative of them as a whole. No one is perfect, and this demonstrates all that. For example, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s focus on Richard Jewell after the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, or the Rolling Stone article about rape at the University of Virginia are also notable shocking lapses in journalistic standards.

    On social issues like what we’re facing now, they are far more credible than the sources you cite. However, they have not gone far enough. They never referred to what Trump has done as lies, hate speech, fomenting violence, or any of the above, because they cared far more about making a spectacle than reporting the truth; as well as wanting access to the White House, even when it no longer was appropriate.

    In case you think this is a sign of contradiction, that I’m shooting myself in the foot, it’s not. The fact remains that nothing is black and white, good versus evil, any of that. It’s possible for people to have both God and the devil inside of them, to be capable of both incredible compassion and unspeakable monstrosity. So it is with the media. What they did to Michael does not automatically make them less credible on other events. It’s a case-by-case basis.

    And the fact that you never respond to every part of my responses proves that you are purposefully ignoring them, just content to stick your fingers in your ears and go “La-la-la, I’m not listening!”

    You want to respond? Respond to every single thing I say. Point by point. That would show your intellectual honesty.

    Like

  18. January 10, 2021 4:13 pm

    “I mentioned them before: Michelle Malkin has made comments…. Stacey Dash is…” – luv4hutch

    Okay, but what do these people have to do with me? You claim that I “support” them while I even don’t know who they are! Is it a deliberate lie on your part or are you carried away by your emotions so much?

    “You want to respond? Respond to every single thing I say. Point by point.”

    I absolutely do not intend to respond to each of your statements because you constantly take the conversation aside into the realms which are beyond the subjects covered in this blog.
    In fact, I need you to explain why you constantly attribute to me the words I never said and accuse me of supporting people I never mentioned.
    And why, in general, do you keep a constant watch over me? Are you my censor, mentor or what?

    Like

  19. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 4:54 pm

    By “support” I mean that you are accepting and posting their comments uncritically, without knowing who they are or what they represent. If anything, the fact that you don’t even know them by name shows that you are linking and reposting articles that correspond to your views without making sure you know all the facts, that you even know who the messenger is. Your ignorance of that is leading you down a dangerous road. Malkin is the one who wrote the article “Hollywood’s Sexual Predator Problem Explodes,” and that you linked to, particularly in your blog posts about Woody Allen. You reprinted the article without knowing that it is written by someone who excuses crimes against humanity committed in the War on Terror, who defends the internment camps. Your ignorance is leading you down a dangerous path.

    “You take the conversation aside into realms which are beyond the subjects covered in this blog.” You’re the one who started it, with your focus on battering progressives and saying they are responsible for Michael’s death. YOU started that, not me. This blog is about supporting Michael’s innocence and the players involved; it is NOT a manifesto attacking liberals and holding them responsible for everything wrong with the world and as the main drivers behind Michael’s harassment. Yet you are determined to make it one, and completely derailing the mission of the blog. It is disturbingly similar to the tactics, but not the content, of the Nazis and the demonization of the Jews as responsible for the world’s ills. Just because you’re not saying “Jews are the problem” does not mean it is not similar.

    I’m not directly attributing quotes to you or saying the blog posts you reprint are you, but what I’m saying is that it all leads up to painting a picture, and I’m telling you what it is. Just because you’re not directly saying “all progressives are like Jim Jones” does not mean you are not implying it. If you can’t see that effect, that both what you say and what you don’t say can lead to the same picture, that you can’t see how they combine together, that’s your problem, not mine.

    As to why I keep a “constant watch” over you…first of all, I don’t spend every minute of my day focusing on you. But the reason I’m saying all this is because I care for you, and I consider you a friend. And a duty as one’s friend is to look out for them, and point out how concerned you are about them, that “your actions will lead to this if you’re not careful.” All I do is out of love and concern. I don’t want to lose you to the same forces of radicalization and violent rhetoric that has led to the problems of the last few years. It’s your choice to accept it or not.

    Like

  20. January 10, 2021 5:26 pm

    “Malkin is the one who wrote the article “Hollywood’s Sexual Predator Problem Explodes,” and that you linked to, particularly in your blog posts about Woody Allen. You reprinted the article without knowing that it is written by someone who excuses crimes against humanity committed in the War on Terror, who defends the internment camps. Your ignorance is leading you down a dangerous path.” – luv4hutch

    Well, I really don’t know Malkin’s views on other issues, but the article you’ve mentioned could very well be quoted in my blogpost about Woody Allen. And now that I reread it I see that she was absolutely right. Moreover, she also mentioned “progressivism” which I had no idea of back in 2014 when the article was written, so 6 years afterwards I came to the same conclusions myself. An interesting phenomenon.

    It’s also interesting that Michelle Malkin is just another of those conservatives who strongly speak against pedophilia in Hollywood. I’ve noticed long ago that more liberal sources somehow whitewash the subject.

    Let me quote Malkin’s article again as the facts she refers to are correct and have been discussed by us on many occasions.

    Hollywood’s Sexual Predator Problem Explodes
    By Michelle Malkin
    May 7, 2014 6 Min Read

    Hollywood is sick, sick, sick. Behind its curtain of holier-than-thou progressivism, the entertainment world’s top A-list stars have engaged in the most depraved sexual abuse against vulnerable children and teens, according to a growing number of victims. After years of cover-up, the institutional scandal is exploding. Finally.

    The latest alleged atrocities involve “X-Men” director Bryan Singer and at least three other power players in the business: veteran television executive Garth Ancier, former Disney executive David Neuman and producer Gary Goddard. Last month, former child actor and model Michael Egan filed civil suits against the men, alleging that they passed around underage boys “like pieces of meat at sex parties” in the late 1990s. Egan’s X-rated lawsuit exposes a cabal of alleged predators who plied young boys and teens with hard drugs and alcohol before sexually assaulting them.

    Egan was repeatedly molested, raped and beaten from the age of 15, he says, at an infamous gay sex mansion in southern California. The mansion was owned by another of Egan’s alleged abusers: scumbag Internet video mogul Marc Collins-Rector. He’s a registered sex offender who lured young boys online, drugged and raped them, and reportedly threatened them with a gun if they did not submit.

    Collins-Rector was convicted in 2004 of transporting five underage boys across state lines with the intent of raping them. He was allowed to leave the U.S. in 2006 by claiming a “brain tumor,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. The (U.K.) Sun reported in 2007 that he was “swanning around Britain in a chauffer-driven limo and surrounding himself with young boys.” He can no longer be located, despite supposedly being under police “supervision.”

    Egan’s mother reported the abuse to the FBI and Los Angeles Police Department back in 2000, the family’s lawyer, Jeff Herman, says. Nothing was done.

    Singer’s lawyer calls Egan’s suit “absurd” and “defamatory.” But the allegations just keep piling up. Singer is now the subject of another lawsuit filed this week by a young British man who alleges Singer’s producer pal Gary Goddard groomed him online from the age of 14, raped him at 16 and shared him with Singer after the London premiere of Singer’s movie “Superman Returns” in 2006. Internet photos have been circulating for years showing Singer with a parade of young boys and men draped around him.

    Egan’s claims are especially chilling in light of similarly lurid allegations made 17 years ago on the set of Singer’s movie “Apt Pupil.” Three underage boys — ages 14, 16 and 17 — filed suit claiming Singer and his crew forced them to take off peach-colored G-strings and strip naked in a shower scene for the movie. Authorities investigated. The suit was dismissed. Nothing was done.

    “Everyone’s ducking for cover,” Paul Petersen, a former child actor and child actors’ advocate, told Entertainment Weekly in 1997. “It’s a complete and total breakdown of the protections Hollywood pretends it accords children.”

    The same industry that sanctimoniously convenes anti-bullying summits with the Obama White House and falsely accuses conservatives of waging a “war on women” has allowed countless children to be stalked, groomed, beaten, molested and raped on casting couches, in movie trailers, and at drug- and alcohol-drenched parties by Tinseltown predators. The alleged child rape scandal exposed by Egan does not exist in a vacuum:

    —Last year, child actor Corey Feldman sounded the alarm on rampant pedophilia in a brave, scathing memoir. He recounted how his best friend and co-star, the late Corey Haim, was sodomized by an older male on the set of their hit film “Lucas.” The boys, fed cocaine by a string of predators, attended parties with Hollywood talent manager and child actors’ rep Marty Weiss. Now a registered sex offender, Weiss pleaded no contest in 2012 to lewd acts on a child under the age of 14. The victim, another young child actor, alleged Weiss sexually assaulted him between 30 and 40 times from the age of 11.

    —Registered sex offender Jason Murphy, a Hollywood casting agent, had kidnapped and molested an 8-year-old boy before joining the industry.

    —Boy band impresario Lou Pearlman was a con artist and sleazeball who hosted sleepover parties wearing only a towel and solicited massages from young male singers. “Certain things happened, and it almost destroyed our family,” boy band star Nick Carter’s mother told Vanity Fair years ago. “I tried to warn everyone.”

    —Former child actor Todd Bridges, of “Diff’rent Strokes” fame, says he was abused by his agent.

    —Former teen pop princess Debbie Gibson has spoken of “older male record executives” who hit on her while she was still underage.

    —Despite disturbing and longstanding allegations of molestation and rape, directors Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still enjoy professional acclaim and adoration of their peers.

    —Perv fashion photographer Terry Richardson continues to enjoy the support of Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Rihanna and Miley Cyrus despite years of allegations of misogyny, manipulation and sexual misconduct against young models.

    If all of these sickos had been Catholic priests, college fraternity members or charter school teachers, we wouldn’t have heard the end of it. Perhaps the social justice awareness-raisers in the Hollywood left should take a break from pointing fingers at everyone else — and put a stop to the monsters in their own midst.
    https://www.creators.com/read/michelle-malkin/05/14/hollywoods-sexual-predator-problem-explodes

    Now what about Stacey Dash? What wrong did this person do and did I also give a link to her/him?

    Like

  21. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 5:42 pm

    Progressivism is not the cause of Bryan Singer getting away with his crimes. When progressives find offenders in their midst, they are excommunicated and distanced from at once; Republicans keep them in.

    Just because Malkin has good points on this subject does not make her trustworthy on other subjects. Seriously, you’re going to trust someone who supported the cruelty of holding Japanese-Americans in camps without trial because “they could be enemies sent to sabotage America from within?”

    Stacey Dash had an article, I forget what it’s called, but she basically said “I’m a black conservative and I’m being silenced,” and also rode the “Hollywood p-les” problem and Corey Feldman’s abuse to make a point that doesn’t exist. Because again, progressivism is not the cause of Feldman and Corey Haim being violated, nor the offenders getting away with it all for decades. You’re going to give support to someone who says “blacks are quick to stay on the Democratic plantation,” that racism is not a problem in America anymore?

    These people are not allies in the battle to clear Michael, they don’t even actually care about Corey Feldman or what he went through.

    Besides, they’ll rail and say “progressives are the problem”, but say nothing about Ted Nugent and his many years of predatory behavior, of Trump and the dozens of women he assaulted, of Bill Cosby and the dozens of women he violated, of Republican sex offenders like Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Dennis Hastert, Larry Craig; of offenders like Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and so on.

    Like

  22. January 10, 2021 5:46 pm

    I’ve read a little about Michelle Malkin and she does look like an intolerant bitch. Here is a piece about her quarrel with Geraldo Rivera:

    OCT. 15, 2007
    Michelle Malkin Quits O’Reilly After Nasty Three-Way

    We guess Michelle Malkin won’t be coming to town to guest-host for Bill O’Reilly anymore. She just quit forever, after a three-way conservative-pundit street fight that has left our minds reeling a little bit. For those weren’t paying attention (we weren’t, until now), what happened was this: Crazy attention whore Geraldo Rivera told the Boston Globe that crazy attention whore Malkin was “the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met … It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in N.Y. I’d spit on her if I saw her.” Later, when O’Reilly asked him if he wanted to say something about it on the show because, he said, Malkin’s “feelings were hurt.” (Saying this he came across, weirdly, as almost grandfatherly and sane.) Rivera did apologized for his “ungentlemanly” and “ungallant” words — “I never spit!” he said — but couldn’t help qualifying that he disagreed with everything Malkin said and basically indicating that he thought she was an asshole.

    Then Ann Coulter chimed in and said Geraldo was an asshole, and furthermore that his overgrown mustache was full of tortilla chips and Michael Jackson’s love juice. (No, she didn’t, but if she had chimed in that’s what we imagine she might have said.) Then Malkin referred to his mea culpa on her Website as “a whiny, effeminate, blame-the-victim bleat,” and soon after decided that she wasn’t going to be a victim of mean-spirited insults, and if anyone really loved her they could go over to her blog where she would be hurling them at others.

    Update: Welcome Lucianne Goldberg readers! And thanks for reminding us that Geraldo is, in fact, the liberal pea under princess Roger Ailes’ many conservative mattresses. How on earth could we forget?”
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2007/10/michelle_malkin_quits_oreilly.html

    But as regards Hollywood she was still right! Sometimes it takes wrong people to say the right things.

    Like

  23. January 10, 2021 5:51 pm

    “Stacey Dash had an article, I forget what it’s called, she also rode the “Hollywood p-les” problem and Corey Feldman’s abuse to make a point that doesn’t exist. Because again, progressivism is not the cause of Feldman and Corey Haim being violated, nor the offenders getting away with it all for decades.” -luv4hutch

    Tomorrow I will look up Stacey Dash too, but Hollywood and progressivism are practically synonymous. Same as Geffen is synonymous with progressivism on the major part of its issues. Progressivism is upheld my the whole of California which is actually its seat.

    P.S. I’ve looked up Stacey Dash and I am almost sure that I never referenced any of her articles. As usual you are telling tales about me.

    Like

  24. luv4hutch permalink
    January 10, 2021 6:13 pm

    If anything, Hollywood is run by conservatives. The CEOs, executives, writers and directors tend to be right-of-center. The studios give far more to Republican candidates than Democrats. Disney, in particular, gave more than half of its political donations to Republicans, specifically anti-abortion candidates.

    Here are the most notable non-liberals in Hollywood. # means that individual is dead. You’ll see that there’s a lot of really notable names, names that appear just as often in gossip pages as George Clooney et al, however, because the press bend over backwards to attack Democrats more often, they only focus on Clooney and the others, not these people. And most of the names on this list still have very thriving careers. If Hollywood was such a “bastion of progressivism” with non-progressives truly being “silenced”, they wouldn’t still be working or getting so many plum roles. In any event, Hollywood is not truly “progressive.” It’s as much of a myth as the “liberal media” is.

    Actors

    A

    Willie Aames
    Tim Allen
    Kirstie Alley
    Leigh-Allyn Baker
    Fred Astaire #
    Christopher Atkins

    B

    Scott Baio
    Adam Baldwin (not a Baldwin brother)
    Stephen Baldwin
    Brigitte Bardot
    Roseanne Barr
    Lionel Barrymore #
    Owen Benjamin
    Corbin Bernsen
    Danny Bonaduce
    Sonny Bono #
    Powers Boothe #
    Ernest Borgnine #
    Samantha Boscarino
    Wilford Brimley #
    Morgan Brittany
    Zachery Ty Bryan
    Candace Cameron Bure
    Gary Busey
    Pat Buttram #

    C

    James Caan
    James Cagney #
    Dean Cain
    Michael Caine
    Kirk Cameron
    Maria Canals-Barrera
    Pat Carroll
    Drew Cary
    Adam Carolla
    Dixie Carter #
    Emma Caulfield
    Jim Caviezel
    Lacey Chabert
    Margaret Colin
    Joan Collins
    Chuck Connors #
    Steven Crowder
    Jim Cummings
    Ken Curtis #

    D

    Tony Danza
    Stacey Dash
    Robert Davi
    Julienne Davis
    Bruce Davison
    Doris Day #
    Bo Derek
    Taylor Dooley
    Shannen Doherty
    James Downey
    Robert Downey, Jr.
    Robert Duvall

    E

    Clint Eastwood
    Buddy Ebsen #
    R. Lee Ermey #
    Joe Estevez
    Kevin Farley

    F

    Lou Ferrigno
    Glenn Ford #
    Steven Ford
    Dennis Franz

    G

    Clark Gable #
    Vincent Gallo
    Andy Garcia
    John Gavin #
    Mel Gibson
    Lilian Gish #
    Jenn Gotzon
    Gary Graham
    Kelsey Grammer
    Coleen Gray #
    Angie Harmon

    H

    Shane Harper
    Melissa Joan Hart
    Patricia Heaton
    Charlton Heston #
    Earl Holliman
    Dennis Hopper #
    Clint Howard
    Barry Humphries
    Tab Hunter #

    J

    Richard Lee Jackson
    Victoria Jackson
    Angus T. Jones
    Henry Jones #
    Vinnie Jones

    K

    Sean Kanan
    Patrick Kilpatrick

    L

    Cheryl Ladd
    Lorenzo Lamas
    Sonny Landham #
    Jennifer Lawrence
    Christopher Lee #
    Rose Leslie
    Jerry Lewis #
    Rich Little
    Lindsay Lohan
    June Lockhart
    Rob Lowe
    Susan Lucci
    Dolph Lundgren

    M

    Jock Mahoney #
    Bruce Marchiano
    Jackie Mason
    David McCallum
    Bruce McGill
    Gerald McRaney
    Adolphe Menjou #
    Vera Miles
    Ray Milland #
    Dennis Miller
    Mary Tyler Moore #
    Roger Moore #
    Michael Moriarty

    N

    Craig T. Nelson
    Michael J. Nelson
    Chuck Norris

    O

    John O’Hurley
    Jennifer O’Neill
    Gary Oldman
    Susan Olsen

    P

    Janis Paige
    Fess Parker #
    Vincent Pastore
    Mark Pellegrino
    Josep C. Phillips
    Walter Pidgeon #

    Q

    Dennis Quaid
    Randy Quaid

    R

    John Ratzenberger
    Ronald Reagan #
    James Remar
    Donna Reed #
    Joan Rivers #
    Ginger Rogers #
    Cesar Romero #
    Mickey Rooney #
    Mickey Rourke
    Jane Russell #
    Kurt Russell

    S

    Antonio Sabáto Jr.
    Adam Sandler
    John Schneider
    Rob Schneider
    Ricky Schroder
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    George C. Scott #
    Nick Searcy
    Steven Seagal
    Tom Selleck
    Charlie Sheen
    Ron Silver #
    Gary Sinise
    Suzanne Somers
    Kevin Sorbo
    Spike Spencer
    Sylvester Stallone
    Barbara Stanwyck #
    Ben Stein
    Brad Stine
    James Stewart #
    Caroline Sunshine
    Kristy Swanson

    T

    Marshall Teague
    Shirley Temple #
    Fred Dalton Thompson #

    V

    Vince Vaughn
    Jon Voight

    W

    Ken Wahl
    Jimmie Walker
    Isaiah Washington
    John Wayne #
    David A. R. White
    Mary Wickes #
    Fred Williamson
    Noble Willingham #
    Bruce Willis
    James Woods
    Chuck Woolery

    Producers, directors, writers, studio chiefs and others

    Jerry Bruckheimer
    Frank Capra #
    Johnny Carson #
    Tom Clancy #
    Frank DeMartini
    Cecil B. DeMille #
    Walt Disney #
    D.W. Griffith #
    Mary Hart
    Butch Hartman
    David Heavener
    L. Q. Jones
    Alex Kendrick
    Andrew Klavan
    David Mamet
    John Milius
    Gerald R. Molen
    Rupert Murdoch
    Ayn Rand #
    Fred Rogers #
    Aaron Russo #
    Zack Snyder
    Howard Stern
    Ed Sullivan #
    Andrew Lloyd Webber
    Michael Winner #
    Franco Zeffirelli #
    David Zucker

    Like

  25. January 10, 2021 7:03 pm

    “Hollywood is not truly “progressive.” It’s as much of a myth as the “liberal media” is.” – luv4hutch

    How funny. Instead of going to sleep I found a book by Stacey Dash (the Hollywood actress you introduced me to) called “There Goes My Social Life: From Clueless to Conservative”, and she says that Hollywood is overwhelmingly progressive and that “the only thing that can really ruin your reputation as a celebrity is to come out as a Republican”. In her opinion even accused pedophiles are more welcome in Hollywood than conservatives:

    My evening was a perfect demonstration of how hard it is for one side to really understand the other. I think Hollywood feels more comfortable welcoming directors who are accused pedophiles, famous actresses who are also thieves, boxers who are convicted rapists, directors who push cocaine, rappers who sell heroin, singers who solicit prostitutes, and actors who beat up their women than a Republican into their midst. In fact, people who fit into those categories still enjoy the professional adoration of their peers in Hollywood, even amidst the suspicion and guilt. It’s like the only thing that can really ruin your reputation as a celebrity is to come out as a Republican.

    Why does liberalism have such a stranglehold on Hollywood?

    Because literally everyone they know is just like them. For all their talk of “diversity,” the people in Hollywood only like diversity if it’s skin-deep. They love to create friend groups that include blacks, whites, different ethnicities, and gays. But if the “diversity” extends to anything more than sexual preferences and skin color, they don’t know what to do. The “diversity” in Hollywood is the easy kind—getting along with people who think and act exactly like you. That’s why they didn’t know how to categorize me when I spoke out against their deeply held beliefs. They like easy-to-digest “diversity,” and I was making them think.
    Yes, there are exceptions. But you can name secret—or in a few cases, not-so-secret—conservatives on two hands. Republicans have a few Hollywood stars—Clint Eastwood, Dwayne Johnson, Donald Trump, Adam Sandler, Jon Voight, Gene Simmons, Vince Vaughn, Patricia Heaton, Bruce Willis, and Stephen fucking Baldwin. Democrats have just about everyone else.
    Like, everyone.

    Her other comments are illuminating too:

    …Russell got physically ill over my dead pheasant photo, but do you think for one second he got sick at the ultra violent movies his best friends make? After all, there’s more gun violence in an hour on American movie, television, and computer screens than in the entire United States in a year. I think these movies are awesome because they’re just one big gun ad for the NRA after another. You’d think these stars would be the most pro-gun, pro-NRA people in the nation. Instead, they hate the NRA with more fervor than they hate al Qaeda—and frequently compare the two. They advocate for tighter gun restrictions, demand terrorists get out of Gitmo, and walk around with armed bodyguards.
    And it never occurs to them that what they’re doing on screen might actually contribute to the gun violence they claim to hate.

    …And don’t get me started on this “green” trend.
    The Hollywood elite have gigantic homes, luxury SUVs, exotic sports cars, and live in thirty-thousand-square-foot mansions with infinity pools. They fly in private jets across the globe—sometimes just for lunch. (Oh, and at Bungalow 8, of course, they might have avoided the paparazzi by taking the helicopter home.) In other words, their carbon footprint is bigger than Sasquatch’s, but they get on social media and try to shame average Americans for doing basic things like heating their homes.
    Please.

    Have you ever noticed how environmentally disrespectful a typical action movie is? When Will Smith is filmed in car chases and explosions that create pillars of black smoke damaging the ozone layer, do you think he is lecturing the producers about their lack of environmentalism?
    Of course he isn’t.

    …And here’s the most hypocritical thing of all. No one even really films in Hollywood anymore. Sure, sitcoms that can be easily made in studios are still produced in California. But dramas—which sometimes cost $3 million per episode—are being filmed anywhere but California.
    Why?
    Because the taxes are too damn high.
    Everything used to be shot there—the enormous state of California offers so many different types of terrain that almost any type of geography could be mimicked well enough to work on screen. But now only 8 percent of filming is done in California, and even the shows set in California are being filmed in Florida. Why? States have gotten smart and offered tax exemptions and incentive programs to production companies. The production companies have gotten smart and moved their shows to these low-tax states.
    As director Michael Corrente said, “Hey, you know what? Studio executives? They’d shoot a movie on Mars if they could get a 25 percent tax break.” USA Today writer Sharon Silke Carty wrote, “The gypsy-like movie industry . . . roams from place to place to find the best locations—and best deals.”
    But wait just a minute. I thought the Hollywood elites don’t mind high taxes? Well, they certainly hire the best tax attorneys in the world to make sure they pay as little to the government as possible. And then, when the rubber meets the road, they know what everyday Americans already know: it’s better to put money into business than into the bloated federal government’s pocket. The bottom line is that they don’t mind if you pay high taxes. They just don’t want to pay them themselves.

    In short, Hollywood seems to be all about Hypocrisy. Will continue reading tomorrow. Good night.

    Like

  26. luv4hutch permalink
    January 11, 2021 9:25 am

    I hereby officially renounce my informal membership on Vindicating Michael.

    I will always remain a proud member of the fight to prove Michael’s innocence, but I simply cannot in good conscience remain associated with this particular blog due to the way that its message and purpose has been hijacked to become a broadside more focused on attacking progressives and any figure left-of-center as being responsible for the attacks on Michael, and by extension, all the ills of the world.

    The original purpose of the blog, to establish the evidence of Michael’s innocence and the motives of the figures responsible for attacking him, and her impressive research identifying the likely role of David Geffen in helping start the attacks as well as aiding and abetting predators in the entertainment industry like Harvey Weinstein and Bryan Singer, have fallen by the wayside, replaced by trying to turn progressivism as a boogeyman that wants to legalize and enfranchise p-les and cannibals, as being part of a hivemind that marches in lockstep with the intent to destroy the social order.

    The focus on proving nebulous and shadowy conspiracies, and the effort to turn Michael into a martyr of the culture wars, of a figure intent to bring God’s word and sermonize His truth who was snuffed out by atheists and any non-Christian in Hollywood, is a blatantly ahistorical rendering of the events in his life and the many manufactured scandals he had to contend with, and it flies in the face of the truth. It also is built upon the tacit and implicit support of racism, anti-Semitism and transphobia. At times, Helena would repost articles and blog posts from people like Michelle Malkin, without knowing their histories and beliefs, simply because they made statements that she agreed with, and didn’t look further. Or the fact that she shows support for the insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capitol, and that Trump is being silenced and “cancelled” despite “doing nothing wrong.” The dog whistles of turning everyone who is left of center into being exactly like Jim Jones is beyond the pale, and Michael would be ashamed to know that this is all being used to support him. This is not what being a real fan, supporting him, is about.

    The squashing of dissent here is also quite thoroughly disgraceful. Those who do not march directly in line with Helena are labeled “not objective observers devoted to the truth”, their voices silenced and removed from the equation. Vindicating Michael is now being turned into a cult, the only people being lavished with praise and attention the ones who completely agree with her viewpoints. All my efforts to speak out and point out the inherent hypocrisy in her positions, the dangerous effects of her ignorance about various matters and the worldview she is pushing, but most importantly how her screeds will do great harm to the #MJInnocent community by making us all look like paranoid conspiracy-minded lunatics, have simply been dismissed as sour grapes, whining and “diverting attention to subjects unrelated to the blog,” despite my pointing out that she did so first. I spoke out as such because I thought of Helena as my friend, and cared deeply about her, was concerned for her. But she flatly rejected my concern, and said all I was doing was trying to censor and silence her, being part of the “socialist march to destruction.”

    I have become the last voice of sanity on the site, as all other figures left-of-center have abandoned the site already, moving on because they simply don’t want to hear this anymore. Except that now, I am officially leaving as well, leaving the shattered remains of the blog to itself. This kingdom of paranoia, the room full of mirrors, is all hers and hers alone.

    Forgive me, Helena, but it has to be this way. As a friend, I simply cannot stand by and continue to watch a friend’s sad decline and self-destruction, your insistence on chasing windmills to the detriment of the movement. I strongly insist that you take a step back from the blog, a mental vacation from everything. Get out into the world and get lost in everything else there is, even if you can only do so virtually and from the comforts of home. Get away from the Internet, the news, all of it, and just simply enjoy life to its fullest. At least 6 months or so of this. And just sit back. After all, the Jackson family-HBO case is going to public arbitration now, and the odds of victory are very good, which will undo the damage that Leaving Neverland wrought. And by your time away, maybe you can finally gain some much-needed perspective about America, progressivism, and politics in general, and how Geffen didn’t destroy Michael because of publicly being a liberal, but because of petty jealousy.

    I wish you nothing but the best, Helena, but I simply cannot remain a party to this continual character assassination that is being used to protest the character assassination of Michael, of lending credence to violence and xenophobia, among other things, despite moving to support the innocence of a man whose very nature and mission to aid his fellow man and end bigotry in all its forms.

    If any member or commentator who has left messages in the past on Vindicating Michael who has been cowed into silence or left because of Helena’s posts and beliefs, I earnestly implore you to make your presence known and speak up, and take up the mantle of leadership and/or truth.

    Like

  27. Nan permalink
    January 12, 2021 6:39 pm

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-riot-self-coup-trump-fiona-hill-457549

    Hi
    I’m just scrolling and saw the post about concern , that trump was thrown off social media.., and some are concerned ,he is being censured ,
    I thought I would put this commentary post up, as this woman is a career state dept person, and also testified , when trump was impeached regarding UKraine
    She is neither left or right , but it may help explain , why , in her opinion, he lost his ability to post on social media.
    Trump is still able to call a press conference at any time , or hold a photo opt/rally as he did today , or call, into FOX News , and other outlets , as that is his right, and theirs..

    Politics in America is extremely heated , and people, who are politicians , as well as commentators , always like to make it more heated , and fan the flames
    Mr Trump is very familiar with how this game with media plays,
    He has been manipulating media since the 80s, as I recall
    I think he is very masterful, when it comes to media and putting his message out , as unfortunately. We saw at the CAPITOL, the other day..
    Hope is might help

    Like

  28. January 14, 2021 5:38 am

    “I will always remain a proud member of the fight to prove Michael’s innocence… The squashing of dissent here is also quite thoroughly disgraceful…I thought of Helena as my friend, and cared deeply about her, was concerned for her. But she flatly rejected my concern, and said all I was doing was trying to censor and silence her, being part of the “socialist march to destruction.”… As a friend, I simply cannot stand by and continue to watch a friend’s sad decline and self-destruction, your insistence on chasing windmills to the detriment of the movement. I strongly insist that you take a step back from the blog, a mental vacation from everything…” – luv4hutch

    The whole of your statement qualifies as a malicious denunciation and a public insult, because all your statements are based on your assumptions only and downright lies about me. And you have certainly never been my friend (recently you even admitted to spreading tales about me behind my back), nor did I ever consider you one.

    Moreover you have never been a “proud member of the fight to prove Michael’s innocence” either – your numerous comments about Michael testify to you doubting his innocence at best, and at worst to your working against him in a sophisticated, provocative and nefarious way of your own.

    You have certainly intensified activities against me due to my latest research of the role of Hollywood in undermining Michael Jackson’s career and reputation, and the more I write about it the fiercer your attacks are – which actually tells me that I am on the right path.

    You’ve always referred to your friend in Hollywood with whom you allegedly had arguments about Michael’s innocence and in your private correspondence with me called yourself Michael Moore, the namesake of Michael Moore, the Hollywood documentary film-maker who does not even want to hear about Jackson’s innocence.

    So whether you are the Michael Moore or just his namesake, you certainly have good connections with Hollywood, and as such are resentful of my view of Hollywood as a place where the idea to undermine Michael Jackson originated.

    And the fact that Hollywood is wholly “progressive” is not disputed by anyone except you. This is how the link between the Hollywood plans against Michael Jackson with its “progressivism” formed, and I will certainly pursue my studies to explore it further.

    This study will take much time and a good deal of luck too, so in a way I will take your advice and will not distract myself with other issues while writing for this blog.

    Like

  29. January 14, 2021 6:23 am

    Nan, I am not going to discuss the highly controversial figure of Trump here.
    What I stand for is freedom of speech as one of the foundations of democracy. When freedom of speech is restricted you can say good-bye to democracy as such.
    In come censorship, fear, authoritarianism and then totalitarism.
    The danger of the process is that restrictions are always made in the name of some good and therefore the changes for the worse go unnoticed by the majority of people.
    And when all plurality of opinion is irreversibly banned it is always too late to protest.

    If it goes the way it goes now, you will understand it in the next ten-twenty years.
    I will not be here to see it, but know for sure that you will understand.
    We know it.

    Like

  30. Nan permalink
    January 14, 2021 2:25 pm

    Hi Helena,
    Censorship , on a large scale , isn’t something I’m familiar with , so , I would say , you have a much greater knowledge of , and understanding, of what a slippery slope , it can lead to ,
    than me.,

    What, you are pointing out, is , true, that when people are shocked and scared , in that moment, others can , use that , to their , advantage, and may try to amass more power and control..
    That is a fact , that have overlooked, in my state of shock this week.

    right now, people are dismayed ,confused and terribly frightened

    As always , I have great respect , for your knowledge and your own experience, of these things, , so I’m going to take , your words to heart, and pay close attention, to your words

    Thank you for pointing , that out to me ❤

    Like

  31. Leonardo Donati permalink
    January 18, 2021 8:31 pm

    thank you very much who ever you are, a lot of people are fighting for mj we need to fight for him together since his no more alive and his family and friends can’t do it by their own they need support

    Like

  32. luv4hutch permalink
    January 22, 2021 2:48 pm

    I guess I shall make just one last post, centered specifically about myself, to explain things and how I have been nothing but an ally in the fight to exonerate Michael. This shall be my absolute final word on the subject, and you shall never hear from me again.

    I never claimed to have major connections to Hollywood. All I ever said was that I knew a friend who is a struggling scriptwriter, and done the rounds on a number of projects that never went anywhere, mainly for Broadway. He said he had contacts with people “who know people” higher up in various studios, and that he basically gets a lot of secondhand things. I never claimed anything more than that, and I certainly have no connections myself. I’m just a humble, 29-year-old college student in Florida with very limited prospects, and have to live with my parents, mainly because they are also my legal guardians because of the fact I have Asperger’s syndrome. If I had contacts in Hollywood, I wouldn’t be living like this.

    When I gave the comments my scriptwriter friend said about Michael, Hook and whatnot, I was floored because in the past, his information about other people and things, particularly those connected with the singer/actor Meat Loaf and the producer/lyricist Jim Steinman as well as mega-successful manager Irving Azoff, have been quite good and truthful, there’d been no reason to doubt it. So, when he came up with all of this about Michael, I was knocked for a loop. I knew in my heart it couldn’t be true, but his information had been so reliable. I gave it to you, basically saying, “I know there’s an explanation for this, please provide it.” And you did, and I’m grateful for that. I did not come with an attempt to undermine this blog or the mission in any manner, I just wanted help and reassurance. Besides, there’s a very important fact: you can’t have faith without doubt, they go hand-in-hand. It’s not enough to believe something blindly, you also have to question whether it is sound to believe it, if you made the right choice. If you don’t question yourself, you can’t grow, your worldview can’t fully develop. So I always question myself and the things I believe all the time. Watch the Martin Scorsese film “Silence”, which is all about this.

    I happen to have Michael Moore as my Christian name, and I deeply resent having to share the name with that blowhard. When did I ever refer to you as that? When did I call you him? I never have. If you can’t realize that, if you can’t decipher that from going back over our comments to each other, then need some help relearning basic reading and comprehension skills. I am not saying that as an insult, I’m saying it out of concern.

    I have done everything I’ve done, everything I’ve said, because I thought of you as my friend. If I really wasn’t your friend, I would not raise these concerns I’ve had about where your train of thought is going. A real friend doesn’t just sit idly by and let them go down a worrisome path to potential self-destruction. They either try to help, to intervene, or if no progress is being made, they just take themselves out of the picture and leave because they can’t bear to watch. If anyone has not been a friend in our relationship, it has been you. You’ve completely batted me away and been a condescending ass throughout. You talk down to me, and to America and modern society as a whole, even though you both have never bothered to see it for yourself and visit, or to actually look beyond your little bubble. You don’t have expertise in any of this, so what you say simply cannot be taken seriously at this point. You are potentially leading to the downfall of this blog, and even the movement as a whole, because you give Michael’s detractors the ammunition they need to paint us as deranged.

    Simply put, there are two rules you should keep in mind but haven’t been following. The first and most important is Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is often the right and most plausible one. So what is more likely: that Michael was set up by a coterie of big bad progressive boogeymen simply for his Godliness and insistence that he wasn’t gay; or that Michael simply made good press and that Geffen et al simply targeted him out of petty reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism?

    The other rule is Hanlon’s razor: Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity and incompetence.

    Helena, for the best of the blog, you have to step down and give the reins to someone else. Someone who isn’t going on these strange limbs and bogging the movement down with paranoid conspiracy theories and is determined to turn back the clock of social progress by a century. Someone new has to take charge and be the main editor and writer. They don’t have to be left-of-center in their political beliefs, but they certainly can’t be demonizing one side and the entire modern world in a continuous “old person yells at cloud” rant in one post after another. If you really care about Michael’s reputation like you say you do, you will do this.

    I’m sorry it had to come to this, but I had to speak the truth.

    P.S. If anything, Hollywood is run by conservatives. The CEOs, executives, writers and directors tend to be right-of-center. The studios give far more to Republican candidates than Democrats. Disney, in particular, gave more than half of its political donations to Republicans, specifically anti-abortion candidates.

    Here are the most notable non-liberals in Hollywood. # means that individual is dead. You’ll see that there’s a lot of really notable names, names that appear just as often in gossip pages as George Clooney et al, however, because the press bend over backwards to attack Democrats more often, they only focus on Clooney and the others, not these people. And most of the names on this list still have very thriving careers. If Hollywood was such a “bastion of progressivism” with non-progressives truly being “silenced”, they wouldn’t still be working or getting so many plum roles. In any event, Hollywood is not truly “progressive.” It’s as much of a myth as the “liberal media” is.

    Actors

    A

    Willie Aames
    Tim Allen
    Kirstie Alley
    Leigh-Allyn Baker
    Fred Astaire #
    Christopher Atkins

    B

    Scott Baio
    Adam Baldwin (not a Baldwin brother)
    Stephen Baldwin
    Brigitte Bardot
    Roseanne Barr
    Lionel Barrymore #
    Owen Benjamin
    Corbin Bernsen
    Danny Bonaduce
    Sonny Bono #
    Powers Boothe #
    Ernest Borgnine #
    Samantha Boscarino
    Wilford Brimley #
    Morgan Brittany
    Zachery Ty Bryan
    Candace Cameron Bure
    Gary Busey
    Pat Buttram #

    C

    James Caan
    James Cagney #
    Dean Cain
    Michael Caine
    Kirk Cameron
    Maria Canals-Barrera
    Pat Carroll
    Drew Cary
    Adam Carolla
    Dixie Carter #
    Emma Caulfield
    Jim Caviezel
    Lacey Chabert
    Margaret Colin
    Joan Collins
    Chuck Connors #
    Steven Crowder
    Jim Cummings
    Ken Curtis #

    D

    Tony Danza
    Stacey Dash
    Robert Davi
    Julienne Davis
    Bruce Davison
    Doris Day #
    Bo Derek
    Taylor Dooley
    Shannen Doherty
    James Downey
    Robert Downey, Jr.
    Robert Duvall

    E

    Clint Eastwood
    Buddy Ebsen #
    R. Lee Ermey #
    Joe Estevez
    Kevin Farley

    F

    Lou Ferrigno
    Glenn Ford #
    Steven Ford
    Dennis Franz

    G

    Clark Gable #
    Vincent Gallo
    Andy Garcia
    John Gavin #
    Mel Gibson
    Lilian Gish #
    Jenn Gotzon
    Gary Graham
    Kelsey Grammer
    Coleen Gray #
    Angie Harmon

    H

    Shane Harper
    Melissa Joan Hart
    Patricia Heaton
    Charlton Heston #
    Earl Holliman
    Dennis Hopper #
    Clint Howard
    Barry Humphries
    Tab Hunter #

    J

    Richard Lee Jackson
    Victoria Jackson
    Angus T. Jones
    Henry Jones #
    Vinnie Jones

    K

    Sean Kanan
    Patrick Kilpatrick

    L

    Cheryl Ladd
    Lorenzo Lamas
    Sonny Landham #
    Jennifer Lawrence
    Christopher Lee #
    Rose Leslie
    Jerry Lewis #
    Rich Little
    Lindsay Lohan
    June Lockhart
    Rob Lowe
    Susan Lucci
    Dolph Lundgren

    M

    Jock Mahoney #
    Bruce Marchiano
    Jackie Mason
    David McCallum
    Bruce McGill
    Gerald McRaney
    Adolphe Menjou #
    Vera Miles
    Ray Milland #
    Dennis Miller
    Mary Tyler Moore #
    Roger Moore #
    Michael Moriarty

    N

    Craig T. Nelson
    Michael J. Nelson
    Chuck Norris

    O

    John O’Hurley
    Jennifer O’Neill
    Gary Oldman
    Susan Olsen

    P

    Janis Paige
    Fess Parker #
    Vincent Pastore
    Mark Pellegrino
    Josep C. Phillips
    Walter Pidgeon #

    Q

    Dennis Quaid
    Randy Quaid

    R

    John Ratzenberger
    Ronald Reagan #
    James Remar
    Donna Reed #
    Joan Rivers #
    Ginger Rogers #
    Cesar Romero #
    Mickey Rooney #
    Mickey Rourke
    Jane Russell #
    Kurt Russell

    S

    Antonio Sabáto Jr.
    Adam Sandler
    John Schneider
    Rob Schneider
    Ricky Schroder
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    George C. Scott #
    Nick Searcy
    Steven Seagal
    Tom Selleck
    Charlie Sheen
    Ron Silver #
    Gary Sinise
    Suzanne Somers
    Kevin Sorbo
    Spike Spencer
    Sylvester Stallone
    Barbara Stanwyck #
    Ben Stein
    Brad Stine
    James Stewart #
    Caroline Sunshine
    Kristy Swanson

    T

    Marshall Teague
    Shirley Temple #
    Fred Dalton Thompson #

    V

    Vince Vaughn
    Jon Voight

    W

    Ken Wahl
    Jimmie Walker
    Isaiah Washington
    John Wayne #
    David A. R. White
    Mary Wickes #
    Fred Williamson
    Noble Willingham #
    Bruce Willis
    James Woods
    Chuck Woolery

    Producers, directors, writers, studio chiefs and others

    Jerry Bruckheimer
    Frank Capra #
    Johnny Carson #
    Tom Clancy #
    Frank DeMartini
    Cecil B. DeMille #
    Walt Disney #
    D.W. Griffith #
    Mary Hart
    Butch Hartman
    David Heavener
    L. Q. Jones
    Alex Kendrick
    Andrew Klavan
    David Mamet
    John Milius
    Gerald R. Molen
    Rupert Murdoch
    Ayn Rand #
    Fred Rogers #
    Aaron Russo #
    Zack Snyder
    Howard Stern
    Ed Sullivan #
    Andrew Lloyd Webber
    Michael Winner #
    Franco Zeffirelli #
    David Zucker

    Like

  33. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 23, 2021 5:53 am

    Hello Elena and the participants, the site where the court documents on the Arvizo case are saved has been terminated. The domain expired. Please inform the Santa Barbara Court to restore it.

    Like

  34. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 23, 2021 9:54 am

    Hello Elena and the participants, the site where the court documents on the Arvizo case are saved has been terminated. Here is the link:http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/
    The domain expired.
    Please inform the Santa Barbara Court to restore it.

    Like

  35. susannerb permalink
    January 24, 2021 5:14 am

    Hi guys, as a co-admin of this blog I finally feel myself compelled to make a short statement from my side regarding the latest developments and discussions on the blog.
    I don’t know about the views of all the readers with respect to Helena’s latest posts, in which she took an unexpected turn towards a new classification into “progressive” and “conservative” members of our society, with progressive people being the ones responsible for Michael Jackson’s maltreatment and demise. But I already told Helena personally in several emails that I have a different view of this as well as of the history and the events in the US and our western society. And I was surprised about her latest opinions.
    I am sorry to say that I cannot go this path with Helena, as I am not convinced of this way of classifying the culprits of Michael’s downfall.
    I don’t believe in this division of two categories with one of them being guilty of mistreating MJ, and I don’t believe in our society being divided in just “progressive” and “conservative”. I believe that one can be progressive and conservative at the same time. And I believe that progressives as well as conservatives are responsible for what MJ had to endure, but mostly as individuals and not as a whole segment of society. Not only “progressives” can be accused of slandering Michael, and Michael was not only “conservative”.
    To me it is disappointing to see how Helena took a turnoff into a direction which leads to more division and which I don’t want to go and I am not convinced of. I always supported her all these years through all the research she did and generally agreed with her about her findings. Her work in this past decade was outstanding. But at this point I cannot go further with her into this direction, and I will refrain from writing more posts or comments for the time being.
    This is Helena’s blog and she is entitled to decide what she is going to write and which direction the blog is going. But this chosen direction is not mine, and I am very sad that we are divided about this and that probably the readers are divided in the same way.
    Take care!

    Like

  36. January 24, 2021 2:03 pm

    Not only “progressives” can be accused of slandering Michael, and Michael was not only “conservative”- – susannerb

    The above is correct, but the problem is that the plan to get rid of Michael Jackson did originate in Hollywood and the people there who masterminded the anti-MJ scam were wholly “progressive”. So progressive and so powerful they were (are) that they set the whole country if not half the world on their “progressive” route.

    Michael Jackson was in a huge cultural conflict with Hollywood over everything under the sun – family values, belief in God, love, sex and even abortion, and one should be blind, deaf and in complete denial not to see it.

    Their moral and cultural division was so deep that the Hollywood war on its outcast was inevitable. But Hollywood wouldn’t be Hollywood if it hadn’t worked out a thrilling scenario under which the anti-MJ scammers stayed behind the scene while Michael was attacked by others – liberals and conservatives alike as the matter of child protection is sensitive to both, and in the past few years have become even more sensitive to the traditionally-minded people who Michael actually sided with.

    The assault against Michael Jackson was a classic provocation, when those who masterminded it all watched others trample Michael down while reaping the benefits for themselves – public attention was distracted from Hollywood which is indeed the den of pedophilia, as Corey Feldman testifies to it, and its perverts could continue with their activities unhindered.

    To my big surprise not all conservatives fell for the anti-MJ scam and lots of them – like Rush Limbaugh, John Ziegler and others – asked reasonable questions, while the CNN, NY Times and Washington Post liberal camp worked in complete unison in unjustly accusing Michael Jackson with no proof at all. This is why the reaction of those few conservatives was precious as it showed that they were not bound head and foot by the “liberal” agenda and still possessed individual thinking as well as courage to express their independent views.

    The only exception to the liberal media was Alan Duke of CNN, who quite objectively covered MJ’s character and the trial of Conrad Murray, but despite his superb reports had to leave CNN immediately after the trial. This was the first red flag for me, the first real sign of the so-called cancel culture which is in full swing now, when journalists with independent views have to leave their newspapers – an abhorrent tendency which is counter-progressive, counter-liberal and is fully pro-totalitarian.

    “she took an unexpected turn towards a new classification into “progressive” and “conservative” members of our society, with progressive people being the ones responsible for Michael Jackson’s maltreatment and demise ”

    Dear Susanne, your description of my views is not exactly correct as I also think that not all people are wholly conservative or wholly progressive. However the situation in the western part of the world has suddenly taken such a dramatic turn that people are forced to take sides.

    Mildly conservative people have become labeled alt-right and nearly fascist, and at this pretext are cancelled, fired and ousted from wherever they are. Recently the comedian Ricky Gervais described this approach as follows: “If you mildly conservative, you are Hitler” (while the situation is exactly the opposite). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CYi5T0yTl4

    To me this kind of approach is totally unacceptable. First of all it is a horrible vilification of innocent people who simply have different views and are sometimes “guilty” of just asking reasonable questions. And secondly, it is an attack on people’s right to free speech and an extremely dangerous slide towards authoritarian thinking – something I never expected to see in the West. And what surprises me most is that reasonable people like you don’t seem to understand which way you are heading. From this point of view I certainly cannot go further with those who are marching in this direction – I have enough of that in my own country, thank you.

    Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so irrespective of my own liberal views I am now surprised to find myself among conservative thinkers who do stand for free speech, following the example of many others who were also pushed to turn against all this “progressivism” and became much more conservative than they ever imagined.

    What an upside down world we live in now – neoliberals are against free speech while conservatives are!

    “at this point I cannot go further with her into this direction” – susannerb

    I agree with you, Susanne, and not to embarrass you any further with my views, have changed your role of an administrator into an author. This way you can always write posts for this blog and make your comments too, but not being the blog admin can always disassociate from my views on various subjects and stay completely independent.

    In the meantime I face an exceptionally difficult task to explain to conservative Americans that Michael Jackson was the first victim of a cancel culture raging in the US now and his example, as well as the ferocity of the current cultural fight, has shown that there is nothing the anti-conservative forces will stop at in order to slander and smear someone they consider their foe or mere opponent.

    And Michael Jackson was their opponent, whether neoliberals like it or not. He was not wholly conservative and was largely liberal, but still an opponent.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 2:13 pm

    Free speech is not “freedom from consequences.” Everyone is still free to say what they want. But if they use that freedom in an irresponsible manner, fomenting violence and hate, they will suffer consequences; whether that is being fired from their job or worse.

    Freedom of speech means the government can’t interfere. It doesn’t mean private employers can’t.

    Progressives are still for freedom of speech. The modern conservative movement has twisted freedom of speech to mean impunity and not suffering any consequences for their behavior. That is very different.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 2:46 pm

    Before you ask, yes, I’m related to your new nemesis. I’m his younger brother by five years. I don’t get involved in things like this, but I just wanted to say, no judgment here, that you made things really unpleasant. I don’t care who’s right or who’s wrong, just that the situation is not fixable.

    Like

  39. January 24, 2021 5:00 pm

    “Free speech is not “freedom from consequences.” if they use that freedom in an irresponsible manner, fomenting violence and hate, they will suffer consequences; whether that is being fired from their job or worse.” -Dylan Moore

    Oh, violence and hate? But who will decide which speech foments violence and hate and which doesn’t?

    For example, why is it not possible to doubt that elementary school children should be taught about 29 genders in human population (or even 100 genders as they claim now) and that 5 year olds should decide which gender they are? Why is no longer possible to even ask such questions?

    [I personally single out this multi-gender issue because it was the final straw for me and unequivocally showed to me that in this aspect I am a total conservative.]

    BBC sex education programme tells 9-year-olds there are ‘over 100 genders’ and shows kids talking to adults about ‘bi-gender’, ‘genderqueer’ and ‘pansexual’ identities
    PUBLISHED: 22:01 GMT, 23 January 2021 | UPDATED: 13:47 GMT, 24 January 2021
    A BBC programme aimed at nine- to 12-year-olds includes the astonishing claim that there are ‘over 100 gender identities’.
    The programme, which features children asking adults about sexuality and gender on behalf of their peers, suggests the different identities include ‘bi-gender’, ‘gender-queer’ and ‘pansexual’.
    The film also tells children that becoming transgender is a way to be ‘happy’ while making no mention of the growing legal and medical concerns about the rising number of children saying they want to change gender.
    Last night, the BBC said teachers were ‘strongly advised’ to watch the film before viewing it with their pupils.
    etc.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9179703/BBC-programme-tells-9-year-olds-100-genders.html

    But why do biology academics who dare speak about two biological sexes get fired because of their statements? Why do they have to be afraid to speak about it?

    Who fires these scientists? The government? No. They are fired because university officials are intimidated by their students who learned all that “progressive” science from some other professors. Okay, there might be different views on the subject, but why do they fire those who disagree? Isn’t this dismissal actually an act of hate and violence against the dissident professor? IT IS!

    And what if a person writes about his doubts in 100 genders on Twitter? The person will be surely ostracized and cancelled – not by the government, but a huge social media corporation which decides that the person’s views are “wrong” and should be eradicated from the social platform.

    But what difference does it make to the ostracized that it is not the government who censors the dissident but a private media corporation, or even all of them taken together – Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, etc? No difference at all. Their character assassination of the person will be “only” social, but it will still be an assassination. And what for? For doubting the “progressive” theories that will one day be overturned anyway?

    And what if a person expresses the same doubts at his workplace and his employers fire him for being not “woke” enough? Of course this is better than imprisonment which an authoritarian regime is capable of, but the person will still lose his means of subsistence which in very many ways is equivalent to being left to starve, his family life being ruined and the family left homeless because of the unpaid mortgage, etc. So isn’t it violence and hate towards this person which are disguised as “the care for common good”?

    Dylan, you are only 24 and your brother says that he is 29.
    And I am 67 and know that the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. And if people don’t stop short and think twice about the ideas and ways some so-called “progressives” are promoting, the road will end where it is doomed to end – in sheer hell.

    Like

  40. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 5:22 pm

    That’s beyond reductionist. Basically saying, “There should not be hate crimes legislation because every crime, like robbery and insurance fraud, has hate inside of it.” Tell that to Matthew Shepard, to James Byrd, Jr., to the Jewish synagogues that are littered with Nazi graffiti. The dissident professor is not being visited on with hate and violence whatsoever. Besides, your strawman argument is quite facile, as professors are not teaching that at all in universities, because we’re still learning so much about the spectrum of sexuality. Nothing is set in stone. Next year we’ll know more than we did this year. That’s the way progress works. But university curriculums are not teaching that in sex ed yet, because it’s still so fluid.

    By the way, Hollywood DID NOT support gays in the ’80s, the time Michael was supposed to have offended them so much. Gays were a target of ridicule and hateful jokes, especially in film and television. It was especially bad in the ’80s, when HIV/AIDS hit the hardest and it was being blamed as the “gay plague.” So the idea that they’d be so offended because of Michael insisting “I’m not gay” simply is not true to history.

    The whole “if you’re mildly conservative, you’re worse than Hitler” is an exaggeration for comedic effect, pure and simple. Conservatives as a whole are not being “cancelled.” Did you notice the list of prominent conservatives in Hollywood who still have very thriving careers and aren’t given grief about that. The ones that are being targeted are those with genuinely hateful rhetoric, being homophobic, transphobic, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamaphobic, flirting with neo-Nazi/white supremacist speech, supporting war crimes, and so forth. People are not being dragged down simply for being right of center, except by a few agents provocateur that are infiltrating to discredit the movement or bullies looking for any excuse to do so. They don’t represent the movement as a whole.

    By the way, conservatives/regressives are bemoaning cancel culture, but they commit in it regularly. Remember The (Dixie) Chicks, whose career was shoved into the ground by the country music audience simply because Natalie Maines (who supported Michael’s battle with Sony in 2002) said to a London audience “we’re ashamed that (President George W. Bush) is from Texas?” That they launched a blistering attack on the War in Iraq, and were dubbed “unpatriotic?” The way that Nixon and the FBI harassed John Lennon and moved to deport him simply for his antiwar views?

    Don’t worry about me hanging around. I’m out of here. But frankly, you need someone else to take over this blog to keep its mission intact, because you’re gonna chase so many others away.

    Like

  41. January 24, 2021 6:01 pm

    “I did not come with an attempt to undermine this blog or the mission in any manner, I just wanted help and reassurance.” – luv4hutch

    I’ve looked up some of your writings about Michael Jackson on other forums and made sure that you indeed tried to defend him there, and this made me warm up to you a bit – after all your support for Michael is the only thing that really matters to me.
    But I’ve also noticed that the people you talked to did not want to hear anything about Michael’s innocence.

    This is why all I request you to do is ask yourself a couple of questions – why do all these people refuse even to look into the evidence exonerating him? Because the media kept saying horrible things about Michael and they are too lazy or conditioned to even check it up?
    But why do the media so consistently lie about Jackson? Why do they never publish any facts that would have exonerated him long ago? Why do they never accept their mistakes?

    In other words my request to you is to do your own research and see what conclusions you will come to.
    Up till now you’ve only asked me to give you the answers, but things will look to you totally different when you try to answer those questions yourself.
    And the value of what you will find will be incomparably higher to you when you find the truth yourself and really work for it.
    And you will stand by what you have found – in the same way I stand by what I have found.
    And you will have to revise many of the things you believe in now, because what you will find may very well clash with your beliefs.
    And then you will have to choose between the hard-earned facts or your beliefs that are also so dear to you.
    And then you can come back and we will talk again.

    Like

  42. luv4hutch permalink
    January 24, 2021 6:13 pm

    I’m only making this one extra response simply because you basically invited me to.

    I’ve done a lot of my own research, and my beliefs are the results of my own research. That includes where I stand on the political spectrum. I’ve done a lot of digging on the other side to make sure, and I’m confident of where I stand and that what I believe and standing on Michael’s side are not in contradiction with each other.

    If you want to know why the media so consistently lies about Michael, it’s the same reason they always lie about the Clintons, that they lie about Johnny Depp currently. These figures make good press, and they’re determined to tear them down no matter what. They basically want a new Watergate by any means, and write the article that takes these figures down, get their Pulitizer Prizes, become the next Woodward and Bernstein. There’s a basic saying: “Allegations get front pages, retractions get Page 24, if they’re even posted at all.” It’s not just with Michael, it’s with a lot of people. It’s what Don Henley wrote about, but you won’t consider him or his word valid just because.

    I’m certainly glad to have a somewhat warmer parting between us, but I still believe we need some space, time apart. It’s good for both of us.

    Like

  43. luv4hutch permalink
    January 24, 2021 6:17 pm

    P.S. The vast majority of the posters on the Van Halen forum that I particularly defended Michael on are right of center and conservative, and they believe firmly in Michael’s guilt, consider anyone defending him crazy. They despise me for being center-left, and they take the defending Michael as proof I’m certifiable. They also believe firmly that Pete Townshend is a p-le, despite the fact that the police officially proved that his version of events was true, but that because he’d admitting to using a credit card to enter such a site, they had to give him a 10-year caution. Apparently no one looking into the problem can be trying to stop it, even police officers doing so to shut these sites down must be p-les themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. January 24, 2021 6:19 pm

    “If anything, Hollywood is run by conservatives.” -luv4hutch

    Absolutely not. Hollywood reporters say in their every article that Hollywood is almost wholly liberal. Take the story of Mel Gibson, for example, who is considered by Hollywood an outsider, a kind of an alien on the Hollywood territory:

    “Gibson is an outspoken conservative Catholic in an industry notable for its liberalism and for its many Jewish executives. His 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ” was widely seen as carrying an anti-Semitic undertone.
    (From “Hollywood Has Officially Forgiven Mel Gibson” https://nypost.com/2017/01/24/hollywood-has-officially-forgiven-mel-gibson/)

    And here is more about the real roots of estrangement between Gibson and Hollywood (don’t tell me that Hollywood is so saintly that they faint when they hear of someone being drunk or saying profanities. Tell that fairy tale to the naive).
    The journalist speaks of Gibson being in the epicenter of a culture war in Hollywood and him being placed “outside the system” (same as Michael Jackson was put outside the system):

    It’s worth noting that the estrangement between Gibson and Hollywood was under way well before the scandal. Gibson had been lurking outside the system since at least 2004, when he released “The Passion of the Christ.” That film was attacked in the press, notably in a series of columns by Frank Rich in The New York Times, before it even came out, and when people got a chance to see it, most critics were decisively negative (in my opinion, unjustly). They treated the intensity of the film’s violence as if it were some sort of exploitation movie — the Jesus saga as a debased S&M freak show — when, in truth, Gibson wasn’t turning Christ’s suffering into a religious slasher film. He was trying to restore the primal shock and awe to the New Testament.

    When “The Passion of the Christ” became more outrageously popular than anyone in the press might have anticipated, it placed Gibson at the center of a culture war. On the one side were the representatives of the “secular” media, along with a Hollywood perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being hostile to the cinematic expression of faith. On the other side was Gibson, the prodigal bad-boy Traditionalist Catholic who had to go outside conventional channels to make his Christ film (in fact, he bankrolled it himself), but who demonstrated — through the logic of the marketplace, and the symbolic logic of the culture war — that his audience was just as huge and devoted as Hollywood’s. He made an “anti-mainstream” Christian psychodrama that suddenly looked like the new mainstream. (As Cecil B. DeMille, or maybe Michael Eisner, would put it: $370 million in gross domestic ticket revenues can’t be wrong.)
    Gibson had tapped into a different mainstream, a red-state megaplex Evangelical groundswell. And that set the stage for something it’s easier to see now than it was then.

    Ever since July 27, 2006, the night that Gibson got arrested for drunk driving and let loose with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to L.A. police officers, the attitude of the media and movie communities has been simple: What he said was horrifying, and maybe unforgivable. People can certainly decide for themselves if they think that Gibson’s apologies are genuine.

    During his decade of exile, especially after the leaked recordings of Gibson, it may have seemed like the whole world saw him as a pariah, but it’s not as if he lost his fans. If anything, the ones who stayed with him grew more devoted. To many of the Gibson faithful who had flocked to “The Passion of the Christ,” the very fact of Gibson’s estrangement from Hollywood now became part of his essence, his mythology. It was a bit of a Trumpian situation: What made him a walking bomb of scandal in the eyes of the liberal secular mainstream was viewed differently by that other mainstream. To them, it only proved how threatening his values were. In his very infamy (and, let’s be honest, in the embrace by some people of the very worst things he said), Mel Gibson was becoming a conservative superhero.

    He has been a movie star for nearly 40 years, and some of his most memorable performances — in the “Mad Max” films, the first “Lethal Weapon,” and “Braveheart” — have been as tormented men whose heightened natures push them over the edge of reason. A version of that dynamic runs through “The Passion of the Christ”; you could also say that it runs through the scandals that did him in. Yet in the years since Gibson fell out of Hollywood, the world has changed. The culture war has only intensified. It’s no exaggeration to say that the presidential election represents a choice between not just two very different Americas but two vastly different versions of reality, and that’s the torn universe that Mel Gibson has come back into. The effect has been to redefine him, on the culture-war stage, as a lone-wolf macho religious renegade who stands up for the righteous (and politically incorrect) things that people in Hollywood don’t. Right or wrong, that is now his image. That’s why he is now an apostle of the alt-right.

    The irony is that if you look closely, that image doesn’t define his films. Not really. Long before his 2006 tirade, “The Passion of the Christ” was tarred by the media with the brush of anti-Semitism, but I don’t believe it’s an anti-Semitic film; if you’re going to brand it that, you’d have a hard time not making the same case about “Jesus Christ Superstar.” “Apocalypto” was Gibson’s baroquely transfixing blood-bucket Mayan fever dream, and it’s the kind of dizzying smart ride that I wish Hollywood made more of. As for “Hacksaw Ridge,” its hero is a Seventh-day Adventist and a singular breed of braveheart, but that hardly makes him a Christ figure. Maybe he’s simply the man of conscience who Gibson dreams of being. After a decade in the desert, Mel Gibson is finally getting his comeback, but is he returning as a walking sinner or a tarnished saint? It depends on who you ask.
    (from “The Mel Gibson Comeback: Will Hollywood Let This Outsider Back In?” https://variety.com/2016/film/columns/mel-gibson-hacksaw-ridge-andrew-garfield-1201910926/

    Like

  45. Illumination-Round permalink
    January 24, 2021 6:28 pm

    Hollywood IS NOT liberal. That’s an absolute lie invented by right-wing newsmakers like Rush Limbaugh, Fox and their ilk. They follow the Big Lie policy: say it enough times, it becomes true.

    The CEOs, executives, writers and directors are overwhelmingly conservative. The actors are split between Democrats, Republicans, and the non-political. But because the mainstream media, who bend over backwards to try and get Limbaugh et al to ease off and stop saying “liberal media” (not that it ever works, because they never say these things in good faith), they only focus on what George Clooney’s latest fundraiser is.

    The people making columns like these are useful fools or fellow travelers who can’t tell that they are selling a lie.

    Besides, Mel Gibson has been accepted and is back in. And many progressives have supported him, and even said “he’s not racist, he’s not anti-Semitic, he’s not sexist.” Take one of his closest friends, Jodie Foster, who is as liberal as can be, and she has always supported him.

    Hollywood doesn’t do anything because it’s leaning one way politically. They only act with their wallets and their stockholders. Nothing more, nothing less. Mel’s exile was simply because they wanted to protect their bottom line, not because of political affiliation.

    Like

  46. January 24, 2021 7:34 pm

    Dylan Moore, if you come here under different names it does not give you any credit, so stop trolling me under the name of “Illumination-Round” and the like, or you will be banned.

    As regards your statements about Hollywood, for a person who has fewer connections with Hollywood than even your brother, you sound too sure of yourself when saying things you are supposed to know very little of.
    This is what the media reports about Hollywood and the way people feel intimidated there if they have the misfortune to keep to conservative views:

    OCTOBER 21, 2008 (12 YEARS AGO)
    Republicans in Hollywood feel bullied
    By Paul Bond

    LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – At a recent event for Republicans in Hollywood, an actress was asked whether she had ever worn her pro-Sarah Palin pin to an audition.
    “You must be joking!” she said with a laugh, adding, “But I see Obama stuff all the time.”
    It’s no secret that the entertainment industry is overwhelmingly liberal — political donations this presidential cycle from the movie, TV and music industries recently were running about 86% Democrat versus 14% Republican. But being outnumbered is one thing, but being bullied by your liberal co-workers into keeping your opinions to yourself is quite another.
    Is that what’s going on? Yes, say many of the industry’s conservatives. That’s why secret organizations with such names as “SpeakEasy” and “The Sunday Night Club” spring up every so often. They’re not conservative per se, they just let it be known that attendees of their gatherings may freely discuss politics without being chastised for not toeing the liberal line.
    “Are you kidding me? Of course it’s true,” Kelsey Grammer said when asked whether the town is hostile to conservatives. “I wish Hollywood was a two-party town, but it’s not.”
    Grammer said he knows of a makeup trailer that sported a sign warning Republicans to keep out and of U.S. war veterans who keep their backgrounds a secret from their Hollywood co-workers because they hear them belittle the military.
    He even said that, earlier in his career, his job was threatened by a prominent sitcom director who demanded he donate money to Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate campaign. To keep his job, he gave $10,000 to Boxer and the Democrats.
    Nowadays, Grammer is a bankable actor who is unafraid to speak his mind. His advice to less established industry players, though, is to shut up about politics — “unless you think the way you are supposed to think,” and that means liberal.
    Unlike Grammer, most Hollywood conservatives appear to be of the closeted variety. “I know every liberal at work and don’t know any conservatives because they never speak up,” a longtime executive at Warner Bros. said.
    However, there are many who are trying to make Hollywood more accommodating to political diversity. Andrew Breitbart is one. At his Breitbart.com (www.breitbart.com), he’s launching a “Big Hollywood” blog with 40 industry conservatives tasked with — among other things — highlighting liberal intolerance.
    “There’s an undeniably vicious attitude against those who dissent,” Breitbart said. “Hollywood is the most predictable place on the planet, not exclusively because of politics but because of narrow-mindedness.”
    Breitbart maintains that liberals have pushed conservatives too hard in Hollywood and that Americans have noticed. His intent is “to stop the bullying.”
    One “Big Hollywood” blogger is Andrew Klavan, an accomplished novelist-screenwriter who made a splash with a Wall Street Journal article comparing Batman and the “The Dark Knight” to President Bush and the war on terror.
    “It’s not easy being different,” he said. “The liberals aren’t all that liberal. We think they’re wrong, but they think we’re evil, and they behave like it.”
    If you lean right, pitch to those who are sympathetic, or at least tolerant of conservative viewpoints, Klavan said. Mel Gibson, Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Surnow come to mind.
    Klavan also said liberalism seeps into too much Hollywood content nowadays … []
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-republicans/republicans-in-hollywood-feel-bullied-idUSTRE49K0FS20081021

    And this is reported 12 years later – nothing changed:

    Hollywood conservatives: Come out of the closet and be heard!
    By Amy Ryan
    Updated August 04, 2020

    Back in 1996, I was lucky enough to get to interview Charlton Heston, who, at the time, was still a much-in-demand character actor (he made three movies that year) and also at the height of his outspoken political advocacy for the right. He complained to me that conservatives in Hollywood felt besieged and believed they wouldn’t get jobs if their politics were known. “There are more conservatives in the closet in Hollywood than there are homosexuals,” he said, repeating a line he’d used in many a stump speech. But surely, I said, his implied comparison with the 1950s blacklist wasn’t serious; after all, he was there in Hollywood at the time, when some movie-industry leftists actually did lose jobs and were even jailed because of their politics. Nothing comparable to that was happening now, was it? Well, sometimes it feels that way, he said.

    Cut to today, and nothing’s changed: Conservatives in Hollywood are still complaining that they’re being shunned in an industry town consisting predominantly of liberals. The latest set of complaints comes via this Hollywood Reporter article about the impending launch of BigHollywood, a blog at breitbart.com that hopes to be a right-wing answer to the Huffington Post, with a group of 40 conservative Hollywood insiders as group bloggers. (Andrew Breitbart announced the planned blog back in August, but it doesn’t appear to be live yet.) The gripes in Monday’s THR article follow a similar airing of grievances by conservative screenwriter Andrew Klavan a week ago in a Washington Post op-ed. While I’m not buying any of these claims that openly conservative actors and screenwriters can’t find work — people like Klavan, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, Tom Selleck, David Zucker, Clint Eastwood, and Bruce Willis aren’t hurting for opportunities in Hollywood, just as they weren’t when Heston spoke to me 12 years ago — but the conservatives are correct that there aren’t many overtly conservative movies made in Hollywood. I don’t believe, however, that liberal intolerance is to blame… []
    https://ew.com/article/2008/10/22/hollywood-conse/

    And here is a “huge” list of 58 Hollywood personalities who call themselves conservatives in the industry which employs 927,000 people directly and supports 2.6 million total jobs:

    A Comprehensive List of Famous Hollywood Conservatives
    Updated January 15, 2020
    For just about as long as anyone can remember, liberalism has been the political ideology of choice in Hollywood. But that is slowly beginning to change.
    Below is a list of Tinseltown celebs who make no bones about their conservative commitments. Some you’ll know. Others might surprise you. Either way, enjoy and know that if you’re a conservative, you’re not alone (even though it might feel like it sometimes)!
    • Trace Adkins: Country Music Singer & TV Personality
    • Danny Aiello: Film Actor
    • Adam Baldwin: TV Actor
    • Stephen Baldwin: Actor, Radio Personality
    • Michael Bay: Big Budget Director
    • Pat Boone: Singer, Songwriter
    • Wilfred Brimley: Commercial Actor & Star of Cocoon
    • Jerry Bruckheimer: TV & Film Producer
    • James Caan: Legendary Film Actor
    • Drew Carey: Game Show Host & Former TV Star
    • Adam Carolla: Former Host of The Man’s Show
    • Tom Clancy: Espionage and Military Science Author
    • Jon Cryer: Notable Film & TV Actor
    • Robert Davi: TV & Film Actor
    • Bo Derek: Model, Film & Television Actress
    • Dale Earnhardt Jr.: American Race Car Driver
    • Clint Eastwood: Academy Award Winning Film Actor & Director
    • John Elway: Hall of Fame Quarterback & Super Bowl MVP with the Denver Broncos
    • Sara Evans: Country Music Singer
    • Lou Ferrigno: TV Actor (Star of The Incredible Hulk & King of Queens Guest Star)
    • Mel Gibson: Film Actor & Academy Award-Winning Director
    • Kelsey Grammer: TV & Film Actor, Star of TV’s Long-Running Series, Frasier
    • Rick Harrison: TV Host of Pawn Stars
    • Angie Harmon: TV & Film Actor, Star of TV’s Law & Order
    • Elizabeth Hasslebeck: Former “Survivor” Contestant & Co-Host of The View
    • Dennis Hopper: Actor, Director & Two-Time Academy Award Nominee
    • Patricia Heaton: TV Actor, Female Lead in TV’s Everybody Loves Raymond
    • Naomi Judd: Country Music Singer, Actress & Author
    • Lorenzo Lamas: TV Actor
    • Heather Locklear: TV & Film Actress
    • Susan Lucci: Emmy Award-Winning Actress & Soap Star
    • Dennis Miller: Actor, Stand-Up Comedian & Political Commentator
    • Chuck Norris: Legendary TV Actor
    • Ted Nugent: Legendary Musician, Speaker
    • Sarah Palin: Reality TV Star
    • Richard Petty: Seven-time NASCAR Champion
    • Johnny Ramone (John Cummings), Legendary Musician, Founder of The Ramones
    • John Ratzenberger: TV Actor, Voice-Over Personality
    • Robert James “Kid Rock” Ritchie: Singer, Song Writer & Rapper
    • Robertson Family: Duck Dynasty Reality TV Stars
    • Adam Sandler: Legendary Stand-Up Comedian, “Saturday Night Live” Alum & Hollywood Film Star
    • Pat Sajak: Wheel of Fortune Game Show Host & Political Columnist
    • Curt Schilling: World Series Champion & Former Phillies, Diamondbacks & Red Sox Pitcher
    • Nick Searcy: TV and Film Actor
    • Tom Selleck: TV & Film Actor
    • Ron Silver: TV & Film Actor
    • Jessica Simpson: Singer, Actress & TV Personality
    • Gary Sinise: Academy Award Nominated Film Actor & TV Star
    • Sylvester Stallone: Producer, Director, Writer & Legendary Film Actor, Star of Rocky & Rambo Films
    • Ben Stein: Film Actor, Game Show Host & Political Commentator
    • John Stossel: Investigative Reporter, Speaker
    • Janine Turner: Film & TV Actor
    • Donald Trump: Reality TV Star
    • Jon Voight: Academy Award-winning Film Actor and Political Activist
    • Bruce Willis: Legendary Film Actor & Two-Time Emmy Award Winner
    • Lee Ann Womack: Country Music Singer
    • James Woods: Notable Actor
    • David Zucker: Director of Airplane & Naked Gun Films
    https://www.liveabout.com/conservative-hollywood-celebrities-3303669

    Like

  47. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 7:42 pm

    A post my brother made you ignored:

    Actors

    A

    Willie Aames
    Tim Allen
    Kirstie Alley
    Leigh-Allyn Baker
    Fred Astaire #
    Christopher Atkins

    B

    Scott Baio
    Adam Baldwin (not a Baldwin brother)
    Stephen Baldwin
    Brigitte Bardot
    Roseanne Barr
    Lionel Barrymore #
    Owen Benjamin
    Corbin Bernsen
    Danny Bonaduce
    Sonny Bono #
    Powers Boothe #
    Ernest Borgnine #
    Samantha Boscarino
    Wilford Brimley #
    Morgan Brittany
    Zachery Ty Bryan
    Candace Cameron Bure
    Gary Busey
    Pat Buttram #

    C

    James Caan
    James Cagney #
    Dean Cain
    Michael Caine
    Kirk Cameron
    Maria Canals-Barrera
    Pat Carroll
    Drew Cary
    Adam Carolla
    Dixie Carter #
    Emma Caulfield
    Jim Caviezel
    Lacey Chabert
    Margaret Colin
    Joan Collins
    Chuck Connors #
    Steven Crowder
    Jim Cummings
    Ken Curtis #

    D

    Tony Danza
    Stacey Dash
    Robert Davi
    Julienne Davis
    Bruce Davison
    Doris Day #
    Bo Derek
    Taylor Dooley
    Shannen Doherty
    James Downey
    Robert Downey, Jr.
    Robert Duvall

    E

    Clint Eastwood
    Buddy Ebsen #
    R. Lee Ermey #
    Joe Estevez
    Kevin Farley

    F

    Lou Ferrigno
    Glenn Ford #
    Steven Ford
    Dennis Franz

    G

    Clark Gable #
    Vincent Gallo
    Andy Garcia
    John Gavin #
    Mel Gibson
    Lilian Gish #
    Jenn Gotzon
    Gary Graham
    Kelsey Grammer
    Coleen Gray #
    Angie Harmon

    H

    Shane Harper
    Melissa Joan Hart
    Patricia Heaton
    Charlton Heston #
    Earl Holliman
    Dennis Hopper #
    Clint Howard
    Barry Humphries
    Tab Hunter #

    J

    Richard Lee Jackson
    Victoria Jackson
    Angus T. Jones
    Henry Jones #
    Vinnie Jones

    K

    Sean Kanan
    Patrick Kilpatrick

    L

    Cheryl Ladd
    Lorenzo Lamas
    Sonny Landham #
    Jennifer Lawrence
    Christopher Lee #
    Rose Leslie
    Jerry Lewis #
    Rich Little
    Lindsay Lohan
    June Lockhart
    Rob Lowe
    Susan Lucci
    Dolph Lundgren

    M

    Jock Mahoney #
    Bruce Marchiano
    Jackie Mason
    David McCallum
    Bruce McGill
    Gerald McRaney
    Adolphe Menjou #
    Vera Miles
    Ray Milland #
    Dennis Miller
    Mary Tyler Moore #
    Roger Moore #
    Michael Moriarty

    N

    Craig T. Nelson
    Michael J. Nelson
    Chuck Norris

    O

    John O’Hurley
    Jennifer O’Neill
    Gary Oldman
    Susan Olsen

    P

    Janis Paige
    Fess Parker #
    Vincent Pastore
    Mark Pellegrino
    Josep C. Phillips
    Walter Pidgeon #

    Q

    Dennis Quaid
    Randy Quaid

    R

    John Ratzenberger
    Ronald Reagan #
    James Remar
    Donna Reed #
    Joan Rivers #
    Ginger Rogers #
    Cesar Romero #
    Mickey Rooney #
    Mickey Rourke
    Jane Russell #
    Kurt Russell

    S

    Antonio Sabáto Jr.
    Adam Sandler
    John Schneider
    Rob Schneider
    Ricky Schroder
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    George C. Scott #
    Nick Searcy
    Steven Seagal
    Tom Selleck
    Charlie Sheen
    Ron Silver #
    Gary Sinise
    Suzanne Somers
    Kevin Sorbo
    Spike Spencer
    Sylvester Stallone
    Barbara Stanwyck #
    Ben Stein
    Brad Stine
    James Stewart #
    Caroline Sunshine
    Kristy Swanson

    T

    Marshall Teague
    Shirley Temple #
    Fred Dalton Thompson #

    V

    Vince Vaughn
    Jon Voight

    W

    Ken Wahl
    Jimmie Walker
    Isaiah Washington
    John Wayne #
    David A. R. White
    Mary Wickes #
    Fred Williamson
    Noble Willingham #
    Bruce Willis
    James Woods
    Chuck Woolery

    Producers, directors, writers, studio chiefs and others

    Jerry Bruckheimer
    Frank Capra #
    Johnny Carson #
    Tom Clancy #
    Frank DeMartini
    Cecil B. DeMille #
    Walt Disney #
    D.W. Griffith #
    Mary Hart
    Butch Hartman
    David Heavener
    L. Q. Jones
    Alex Kendrick
    Andrew Klavan
    David Mamet
    John Milius
    Gerald R. Molen
    Rupert Murdoch
    Ayn Rand #
    Fred Rogers #
    Aaron Russo #
    Zack Snyder
    Howard Stern
    Ed Sullivan #
    Andrew Lloyd Webber
    Michael Winner #
    Franco Zeffirelli #
    David Zucker

    Like

  48. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 7:43 pm

    P.S. Disney gives more than half of its political donations to Republicans, notably anti-abortion candidates. So does Sony, Paramount, Warners and Universal. All the majors stump for conservatives.

    Like

  49. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 7:52 pm

    Other notable figures on the list who have thriving careers who identify as conservative:

    Game show hosts

    Orson Bean #
    Merv Griffin #
    Ben Stein

    Musicians and singers

    Aerosmith (Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, specifically)
    Azaelia Banks
    Pat Boone
    James Brown #
    Anita Bryant
    Kate Bush
    Eric Carmen
    50 Cent
    Eric Clapton
    Kelly Clarkson
    Alice Cooper
    Billy Corgan (lead singer of The Smashing Pumpkins)
    Bing Crosby #
    Jonathan Davis (lead singer of Korn)
    Sammy Davis Jr. #
    Rick Derringer
    Five for Fighting
    Grand Funk Railroad
    Michale Graves
    Jesse Hughes (lead singer of Eagles of Death Metal)
    Vanilla Ice
    Mick Jagger
    Lord Jamar
    Wyclef Jean
    Jedi Mind Tricks
    Robia LaMorte
    Blackie Lawless
    Aaron Lewis
    Kerry Livgren (former lead guitarist and songwriter for the band Kansas)
    Meat Loaf
    John Lydon
    Lynyrd Skynyrd
    Dean Martin #
    Morrissey
    Dave Mustaine (lead singer co-guitars of Megadeth)
    Ted Nugent
    Donny Osmond
    Elvis Presley #
    Prince #
    Johnny Ramone #
    Little Richard #
    Kid Rock
    Rush
    Gene Simmons
    Jessica Simpson
    Frank Sinatra #
    Donna Summer #
    Trapt
    Cowboy Troy
    Jimmie Vaughan
    Kanye West
    Andy Williams #
    Daddy Yankee

    Country music

    Trace Adkins
    Gene Autry #
    Charlie Daniels #
    Lee Greenwood
    Toby Keith
    Lorreta Lynn
    Bonnie Paul
    Eddie Rabbitt #
    John Rich (of Big & Rich)
    Travis Tritt
    Hank Williams, Jr.
    Lee Ann Womack
    Darryl Worley

    Like

  50. January 24, 2021 8:00 pm

    “The vast majority of the posters on the Van Halen forum that I particularly defended Michael on are right of center and conservative, and they believe firmly in Michael’s guilt, consider anyone defending him crazy” – luv4hutch

    That’s right, but you did not disclose that your fellow-workers from the other forum – Daily Kos which is focusing on Liberal politics, said the same about Michael and in their comments to you called him all those names which I don’t even want to repeat here. From your view point these people should be much more fair than the “media that lied about the Clintons”, however they are not.

    The moral of the story is this:
    1) the anti-Jackson campaign was not invented by this or that media, but was simply upheld by them for profit and other reasons like political alliance or personal friendship with the initiators of the campaign.

    2)The campaign against Michael Jackson originated with a group of certain people in Hollywood who consistently spread innuendos about Jackson by various ways and means, hence the Hollywood “buzzing” about Michael Jackson even at an early stage.

    3) Their first open attack was made via their agent Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA attendee who openly wrote in his book that he had received a list of certain names in Hollywood and started collecting information against Jackson as his name was on the list. By his own admission he went only after Jackson. His task was to make rounds of the families with children who knew Michael personally and tell them that he was a ped-le. The visits were made under the pretext that Gutierrez was writing a book about Michael and this is why he was “interviewing” his friends.

    4) Gutierrez was certainly paid for this work (by someone in Hollywood?) and the money was big enough to keep him going for several years before the first allegations were made against MJ in 1993. When his initial efforts to vilify Jackson failed Gutierrez complained that he didn’t have money and had to sell satellite antennas for a living – until he struck fortune with the Chandlers at last.

    5) And when the Chandler family did make their allegations, the same Hollywood people who initiated it all pulled the respective media strings to make the story viral, as well as used their connections with law enforcement to immediately start an investigation against him.

    P.S. None of that was done in respect of those monsters who abused Corey Feldman and Corey Haim in Hollywood, though Feldman gave all the names to the police when they questioned him about MJ.

    Like

  51. January 24, 2021 8:22 pm

    “Don’t worry about me hanging around. I’m out of here.”- Dylan Moore

    Good.
    However you promised it long time ago.
    Time to honor your word.

    Like

  52. Dylan Moore permalink
    January 24, 2021 8:26 pm

    I’ll be happy to. Note that I’m saying this right now, before you respond to the other things I posted after “Illumination-Round.” But as of right now, 8:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, I’m gone.

    Like

  53. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 26, 2021 8:15 am

    Hello. The site where the court documents on the Michael Jackson case are stored is not available. Here is the link: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/
    The domain expired.
    Please inform the Santa Barbara Court to restore it. The court probably moved. New address with phone contacts: http://out.easycounter.com/external/sbcourts.org

    Like

  54. January 26, 2021 7:02 pm

    Yellow-Jackets aka Illumination-Round aka Dylan Moore aka luv4htuch,
    you proved yourself to be a TROLL with a strange obsession with me and this blog.
    You solemnly declared that you won’t come here again, but still keep writing under different names in order to present yourself as a crowd of people and bring chaos to the blog.
    Fortunately the wordpress platform shows to me as the blog admin that the above four names have one and the same ID. Even if you share the same computer with your brother, it is still too much.
    I’m not disclosing the full of it but here is its shortened variant:

    luv4hutch
    73.139.208.19…

    Dylan Moore
    73.139.208.19…

    Illumination-Round
    73.139.208.19…

    Yellow-Jackets
    73.139.208.19…

    It is simply incredible to what lows some left-wing “progressives” will go to in order to disrupt the research when it takes a turn that is not to their liking.
    And since you are not honest with me and my readers, I am afraid that the sources you refer us to are as dishonest as you are.

    You proved yourself to be a liar, so from now on you will be banned.

    Like

  55. January 26, 2021 7:49 pm

    “Please inform the Santa Barbara Court to restore it. The court probably moved. New address with phone contacts: http://out.easycounter.com/external/sbcourts.org” – Лилия

    Lilia, thank you for alerting us to this situation. I think that all those reading this blog are interested in the original documents for the 2005 court trial and are disturbed by not having access to them any more.
    However the above link did not work for me. I’ve found another one but it seems that now the documents will be available for money only (?). How convenient. https://www.courttrax.com/now-available-santa-barbara-county-ca-superior-court-records/
    If anyone finds a cost-free way to retrieve those papers please share this information with us.

    Lilia, in case you are interested in some specific documents I can look up those that were stored on my computer.
    Or maybe I will post them here on a separate page.

    Like

  56. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 27, 2021 12:39 am

    Hello, Helena. I go online via Opera. To open this link (http://out.easycounter.com/external/sbcourts.org), you need to connect the VPN in the browser settings. When I first came in, I also have a website did not open after connecting to the VPN, it worked. Please try again.

    Like

  57. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 27, 2021 4:37 am

    Helena, I have some saved documents on the Arvizo case that I can share with you. I can send them to you by email. Can you also share with me the documents you have?

    Like

  58. January 27, 2021 7:34 am

    Can you also share with me the documents you have? – Лилия

    Lilia, my impression is that it is a whole lot, so it may probably be better to make a library of them on a separate page here. I will check up my archives and see what I have.

    Like

  59. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 28, 2021 10:20 pm

    Lilia, my impression is that it is a whole lot, so it may probably be better to make a library of them on a separate page here. I will check up my archives and see what I have – Thank you, Helena, I’ll be waiting for it.

    Like

  60. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    January 29, 2021 6:16 am

    Hi, Elena. I have emailed you the documents that I have. Please read the letter.

    Like

  61. nan permalink
    January 29, 2021 10:04 am

    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/john-branca-artists-need-to-pay-attention-to-their-legacy-and-be-very-specific-about-it/

    Just in case this hasn’t been shared, it’s a good interview with John Branca
    He also mentions how MJ fired him a long time ago, and how it was very difficult for him..
    As well as the HBO lawsuit and how they want open arbitration

    Like

  62. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    February 11, 2021 12:55 am

    Hi, Elena. I have emailed you another document that I have. Please read the letter. And there is also news about the site.

    Like

  63. Лилия Ахметова permalink
    February 11, 2021 8:38 am

    Hi, Elena, I found more documents, I sent them in parts. Please take a look at e-mail.

    Like

  64. April 27, 2021 6:12 am

    Well, good news at last.

    WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: THE FINAL ORDER

    “After hearing argument from counsel, the Court adopted its tentative ruling as its final ruling & therefore GRANTED the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff.”

    Click to access 2021-04-26-Robson-Final-Ruling.pdf

    In other words Robson’s case against MJJ companies (MJ Estate) has been dismissed by the appellate court (sorry for the mistake).

    There will be no trial and what is much more important – Robson and Safechuck whose case was dismissed earlier will NOT get any money from the Estate. This is the most important outcome of this case as those who masterminded this project first and foremost wanted the Estate to go bankrupt. In fact, they always wanted to ruin Michael -during his lifetime and after his demise.

    Now their effort has failed. There will be other tries, but for today it is a big victory over Michael Jackson’s foes! It serves Robson and Safechuck right – they shouldn’t have agreed to be the puppets in someone else’s evil game. Actually they belong in jail for their extortion attempts.

    Like

  65. April 27, 2021 6:13 am

    Here is Roger Friedman’s take on the issue:

    Michael Jackson Absolved: Second Accusation of Molestation is Dismissed By Court in Final Ruling

    by Roger Friedman – April 26, 2021 1:23 pm
    0 7371

    “Leaving Neverland,” the documentary in which two men accused Michael Jackson of child molestation, has been repudiated in court.

    The Los Angeles Superior Court this morning ruled against Wade Robson in CASE NO. BC508502 in claims against corporations owned by Michael Jackson and/or the Estate of Michael Jackson and dismissed his case again. The Michael Jackson Estate is represented by the late Howard Weitzman and Jonathan Steinsapir of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump LLP. Statement from Mr. Steinsapir:

    “As of today, a summary judgment AGAINST Wade Robson has been granted three different times by two different judges of the Superior Court.

    “Wade Robson has spent the last 8 years pursuing frivolous claims in different lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s estate and companies associated with it. Robson has taken nearly three dozen depositions and inspected and presented hundreds of thousands of documents trying to prove his claims, yet a Judge has once again ruled that Robson’s claims have no merit whatsoever, that no trial is necessary and that his latest case is dismissed,” said Jonathan Steinsapir, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson.

    Previously, the case brought by James Safechuck against the Jackson estate was thrown out.

    Robson and Safechuck not only sued Jackson but participated in the HBO documentary directed by Dan Reed in which they alleged molestation years after Jackson died. Oprah Winfrey bought their story hook, line, and sinker, and conducted interviews with them allowing the men to allege accusations without any solid evidence. Now the court has ruled against them. It’s over.

    https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/04/26/michael-jackson-absolved-second-accusation-of-molestation-is-dismissed-by-court-in-final-ruling

    Well, technically speaking Michael has not been absolved or rather, did not even need it, as the case against him was fictitious and the facts behind the LN project undisputedly prove that Michael Jackson was INNOCENT.

    All those who explored the factual side of the story know that it was a FRAUD.

    Like

  66. April 27, 2021 6:30 am

    And this is what John Ziegler says about it:

    “We know now that Wade Robson & James Safechuck, two obvious frauds who were used by conman Dan Reed & embraced for what appear to be political reasons by Oprah Winfrey & HBO, will NOT be making a bag of money they hoped for from their allegations.

    What needs to happen now is for HBO to pay!”

    I fully agree with John Ziegler who from the very start of it pointed out the ridiculousness of “Leaving Neverland” – the case is political and its biggest goal was enriching the conmen and financial ruining of the MJ Estate (besides tarnishing Michael Jackson’s name and legacy).

    Now the money aspect has been successfully solved, but it remains for the majority of public to still understand that Michael Jackson’s case is POLITICAL.

    Like

  67. April 27, 2021 6:39 am

    All in all Robson’s case lasted for 8 years and was dismissed by two judges 6 times.
    A quote from TSCM (@MJJRepository) who very helpfully followed the case from beginning to end:

    TSCM
    @MJJRepository

    Just, smile.

    While irrelevant outlets try spinning stories they know nothing about, #MJInnocent trends globally.

    8 years, 6 attempts, all dismissed. A crushing defeat for Wade, who has never seen a dime from estate.

    Finaldi’s debt from taking these cases must be staggering.

    Like

  68. April 27, 2021 4:33 pm

    Note: The decision to dismiss Robson’s lawsuit wasn’t by the appellate court, sorry for the mistake. Quite on the contrary – it was renewed by the court of appeals after Gavin Newsom, the California governor had changed legislation that helped Robson and Safechuck go on with their frivolous cases against Jackson.

    Here is a reminder of what preceded the latest events:

    Judge tosses lawsuit of man who alleged Jackson molestation

    ANDREW DALTON Mon, April 26, 2021, 6:21 PM

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Monday dismissed the lawsuit of a man who alleged that Michael Jackson sexually abused him as a boy.

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young granted the Jackson estate’s request to dismiss the suit brought in 2013 by Wade Robson. The judge said two Jackson entertainment corporations targeted by the lawsuit had no legal duty to protect Robson from Jackson.

    “There is no evidence supporting plaintiff’s contention that defendants exercised control over Jackson,” the judge wrote. “The evidence further demonstrates that defendants had no legal ability to control Jackson, because Jackson had complete and total ownership of the corporate defendants.”

    The dismissal came after the judge dismissed a similar lawsuit in October by James Safechuck. Both men made their allegations in the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland.”
    Vince Finaldi, attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said the ruling has “fatal flaws” and will be appealed.
    “If allowed to stand, the decision would set a dangerous precedent that would leave thousands of children working in the entertainment industry vulnerable to sexual abuse by persons in places of power,” Finaldi said in a statement.

    Robson, now a 38-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was 5 years old. He went on to appear in Jackson music videos and record music on his label.

    His lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him over a seven-year period, and that as Jackson’s employee, the two corporations Jackson had started had a duty to protect him the same way the Boy Scouts or a school would need to protect children from their leaders. But the judge found the corporations were merely legal entities that were controlled by Jackson, not organizations that could control him.

    Another judge previously dismissed the lawsuits by Robson and Safechuck in 2017, finding the statute of limitations had expired. But an appeals court revived the legal actions in 2019 after California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law giving those who allege childhood sexual abuse longer to file lawsuits.

    The allegations gained new life when the two men repeated them in detail in “Leaving Neverland,” a documentary that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and later aired on HBO.
    The Jackson estate has adamantly and repeatedly denied that he abused either of the boys, and brought a lawsuit against HBO that is now in private arbitration.

    “Wade Robson has spent the last 8 years pursuing frivolous claims in different lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s estate and companies associated with it,” Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said in a statement after Monday’s ruling. “Yet a judge has once again ruled that Robson’s claims have no merit whatsoever, that no trial is necessary.”

    The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were victims of sexual abuse. But Robson and Safechuck have repeatedly come forward and approved of the use of their identities.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-lawsuit-man-alleged-232150922.html

    So Finaldi wants to appeal. This is costly business, but it looks like the sources he draws money from are inexaustible.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. Des permalink
    May 2, 2021 1:54 am

    Hello dear Helena wishing you a happy Easter and it was nice to hear from you again

    Like

  70. May 2, 2021 10:59 am

    Thank you, Des. I am happy to hear from you too.
    Sorry for having not posted anything for a long time. I would have if Michael Jackson’s case were not purely political. So I’m still thinking whether it is worth opening the can of worms. It seems that very few people are ready for the truth at the moment.
    P.S. Those who hope that I’ve changed my views since the last time I wrote here may rest assured that every single fact uncovered since then has made even more convinced of what I thought before. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  71. Chis permalink
    May 4, 2021 8:46 pm

    Saying “Trump did nothing wrong” when he clearly did many very wrong things including: 1. planning a violent insurrection; 2. raping women and possibly a child; 3. inciting racists; 4. not adequately protecting US citizens from covid, is such a startling take from the person trying to prove MJ’s innocence. It’s so over the top ridiculous that it even makes me pause for a second concerning your coverage of MJ (who I’ve always thought is innocent). I will continue to support those looking to prove MJ’s innocence but your so out of your skull with this weird take on Trump, it’s mind boggling.

    Like

  72. May 5, 2021 4:38 pm

    “Saying “Trump did nothing wrong” when he clearly did many very wrong things” -Chis

    Who says “Trump did nothing wrong”? Who are you quoting here, I wonder?
    And before you answer I suggest you first read my comments for this blog post where I speak on the related issues.

    Like

  73. May 5, 2021 4:55 pm

    GREAT NEWS – A MAJOR WIN BY THE ESTATE!
    John Branca and the Estate lawyers have done nearly the impossible – they won in their lawsuit against the IRS! The tax court decided in their favor! This is the best news ever!

    After years, court hands tax win to Michael Jackson heirs
    A U.S. tax court has handed a major victory to the estate of Michael Jackson in a years-long battle

    By ANDREW DALTON AP Entertainment Writer
    5 May 2021, 04:08

    LOS ANGELES — A U.S. tax court has handed a major victory to the estate of Michael Jackson in a years-long battle, finding that the IRS wildly inflated the value at the time of his death of Jackson’s assets and image, leading to an estate tax bill for his heirs that was far too high.

    The IRS had put the value of three disputed aspects of Jackson’s worth at the time of his 2009 death at about $482 million. In his decision issued Monday, Judge Mark Holmes put that figure at $111 million, far closer to the estate’s own estimates.

    The estate’s executors said it was a huge and unambiguous victory for Jackson’s children.

    “We’re pleased,” co-executor John Branca told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “We always try to do the right thing. We tried from the beginning to follow the IRS rules and regulations, and relied on the best experts possible. It’s unfortunate that we were forced to litigate to protect ourselves.”

    The judge most disagreed with the IRS over the value of Jackson’s image and likeness. While the IRS put it at $161 million, Holmes ruled it was just $4.15 million. He noted that despite Jackson’s acquittal on all counts at his 2005 trial for child molestation, the allegations continued to dog him, and while Jackson was selling out dates for a planned world tour when he died, he could not find a sponsor or merchandise partner.

    “The fact that he earned not a penny from his image and likeness in 2006, 2007, or 2008 shows the effect those allegations had, and continued to have, until his death,” Holmes wrote in the sprawling 271-page decision that tracks Jackson’s fame and finances through most of his life.

    The tax fight had led to a bill of about $700 million after an audit of the 2013 taxes on the estate, whose heirs are Jackson’s mother and three children, about $200 million of it a penalty for underpaying.

    A new tax bill will now be calculated using Holmes’ figures, and it will include no penalties.

    Also in dispute were Jackson’s 50% stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a catalog that includes 175 Beatles songs; and his interest in another catalog that includes the songs he wrote.

    The IRS expert had put those assets at a combined total of about $320 million. The judge found that with Jackson’s debts, both combined were worth only $107 million at the time of his death.

    The ruling, awaited for years, resolves one of the few disputes that still hovered over Jackson’s estate nearly a dozen years after his unexpected death on June 25, 2009, after a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol.

    Another was resolved a week earlier when a judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by choreographer Wade Robson, one of two men featured in the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland,” who alleged Jackson sexually abused him as a child. The similar lawsuit of James Safechuck, the other man featured in the documentary, was dismissed in October. The men’s attorney called the decisions a dangerous precedent for protecting children, and said they plan to appeal.

    With years of disputes cleared and a pandemic-forced delay on projects lifting, the estate’s leaders feel like they are in an excellent spot to again start promoting Jackson’s legacy.

    “We’re at an absolute turning point,” Branca said. “I think people have come to realize that Michael was innocent of any charges and unable to protect himself. We’ve got a wonderful Broadway play coming, we’ll be reopening our Cirque du Soleil show soon and we’ve got some surprises coming.”

    The judge noted the huge success that the estate has seen since Jackson’s death through such shows, a hit concert film, and several strategic decisions to sell assets.

    However, he said, the IRS appeared to be factoring those successes into its decisions rather than considering only the circumstances at the moment of Jackson’s death, when things were considerably more grim after several years of waning popularity, poor management and reckless spending from Jackson.

    The judge mocked the estate’s initial valuing of Jackson’s image and likeness at only $2,000, however, saying it was putting “one of the best known celebrities in the world — the King of Pop — at the price of a heavily used 20-year-old Honda Civic.”
    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/years-court-hands-tax-win-michael-jackson-heirs-77495826

    The Estate lawyers say they do not agree with some of the judge’s statements but are happy that this is a huge and unambiguous victory for Michael Jackson’s children. IT IS!

    “John Branca and John McClain, co-executors of The Estate of Michael Jackson, on Monday issued this statement in response to the decision:
    “This thoughtful ruling by the U.S. Tax Court is a huge, unambiguous victory for Michael Jackson’s children. For nearly 12 years Michael’s Estate has maintained that the government’s valuation of Michael’s assets on the day he passed away was outrageous and unfair, one that would have saddled his heirs with an oppressive tax liability of more than $700 million. While we disagree with some portions of the decision, we believe it clearly exposes how unreasonable the IRS valuation was and provides a path forward to finally resolve this case in a fair and just manner.”
    The estate was represented by attorneys from Hochman Salkin Toscher Perez; Hoffman Sabban & Watenmaker; Freeman Freeman Smiley; and longtime Jackson estate lawyer the late Howard Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump.
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jacksons-likeness-valued-4-1-million-tax-court

    Liked by 1 person

  74. June 9, 2021 10:10 pm

    Wow.. His life was so insane between endless rehearsals, shows, lawsuits, trying to help children, foundations, charity events, awards, family, and on and on…. I found out recently, his own dad tried to sue him for stealing material for one of his albums. (Maybe Billy Jean)

    It’s just sad that so many people seem to go for the chum when it comes to MJ. Although he has a lot of amazing supporters also. It’s almost as if he isn’t gone. Still as big as ever, and everyone and their brother trying to make a coin off of his name. Thanks for doing this blog. I do appreciate it.

    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: