by a german journalist
Leaving Neverland: Who is afraid of the black man?
https://www.fischundfleisch.com/ste...ec-zSHfJ-4ffWhM8WqtaLN3APvugTLd9vNdU_mchguWzk
"We do not see things as they are, but as we are." From the Talmud
I'm not a Michael Jackson fan, nor was I ever one. In my eyes, he was an eccentric pop star who had a thing for little boys he probably also sexually abused. A psychologically conspicuous man whose home was found to contain child pornography and strange images of handcuffed children, who silenced his victims by millions and bleached his skin to look like a white man.
My impression of Jackson got cracks when the pop star died in 2009. In the following days I wanted to make a more differentiated picture of Jackson, off the medial narrative and found not only a bunch of fist thick medial lies (actually had Jackson, as he also emphasized, the skin disease vitiligo, which at the latest at the autopsy Certainty), but also tons of inconsistencies concerning the allegations of sexual abuse in 1993 and 2005. Although the seed of doubt was sown, I continued to believe the allegations and my motivation to play detective here was to end, because Jackson did not matter in my life.
It was not until this year, in 2019, when the documentary »Leaving Neverland« was born, that I wanted to know for sure. Wade Robson and James Safechuck accuse the King Of Pop of sexually abusing them for years. The documentary struck like a bomb, because now he was finally here: The proof that Jackson was always guilty. Apart from a few media that drew a more nuanced picture here, that was the mainstream canon and to be honest, that's exactly what I thought. So I did not go to work so enthusiastically and just wanted to finish it for myself.
But what shocked me even more than the documentation itself was that you did not have to be Columbo to find obvious inconsistencies in the personal background of the two and in the story they were telling. These things are open and are only a few clicks away in times of the internet. This article is not about listing all the inconsistencies (and there are innumerable ones) in Wade Robson and James Safechuck's story, but the display of the present media power, which defines what truth has to go down in history. In summary, I would like to say in advance that my weeklong journey into human abysses, which not only dealt with the current allegations of abuse, very soon shifted the focus away from Jackson and to the alleged victims, in the end to focus on ourselves.
What does it mean when the otherwise absent father of the alleged victim Jordan Chandler in 1993, even before he drugged his son to obtain a confession, had already spoken in recorded telephone conversations weeks earlier that he was destroying the Jackson family? and after Jackson refused to pay him a $ 20 million film? What does it mean when Jordan Chandler, after Jackson paid him off (Jackson wanted the process to prove his innocence, but was persuaded by the management and Elizabeth Taylor to settle the matter with money Jackson was then in debt and he would have his due to the process, he would probably have lost his beloved Neverland Ranch), broke off contact with his mother and father, and has not spoken to his mother to this day (his father died a few months after Jackson died) around)?
What does it mean if the Arvizos were well known for their collective raids long before their allegations? What does it mean when Jackson, when he became acquainted with the Arvizos, was warned in advance of this family by several celebrities (Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, George Lopez, ...), because they themselves had made acquaintance with them and their cheeky demands However, Jackson ignored these warnings, which he then bitterly regretted in 2005? What does it mean if the plaintiffs who used the same psychiatrist and lawyer as the Chandlers in 1993 became involved in such serious, even ridiculous contradictions in court, as if they had not even thought it over in advance? The acquittal was straightforward, and if you look at Gavin Arvizo's testimony to the police on video, you will not see a victim there, but a bored child with no signs of trauma or shame, and in between when the police leave the room, too likes to prove his basketball skills with a crumpled piece of paper and a trash can.
Today, when all police and FBI files are publicly available, one first becomes aware of how strongly Jackson's medially drawn image deviated from reality. For example, the alleged child pornography content in the 2005 trial included four completely legal and harmless art books, three of which also contained pictures of naked children, from a collection of 10,000 completely unsuspicious books. And the "deviant pictures" referred to a (!) Picture in a (!) Book, which did not market aberrant art, but artistically worked up childish traumas - something with which, the child Michael Jackson beaten to unconsciousness had more than enough experience , The nude photo of a child was again a photo of a child in infancy of a boy who always insisted on Jackson's innocence, etc., etc.)
What about the current allegations? Here is the history that led to this documentary, much more interesting than the documentation itself. Please read this confirmed monkey circus Robson on his lawsuit against the Jackson Real Estate by and then ask yourself if this man a reliable witness.
Wade Robson, who was sent to cross-examination by Jackson's lawyer in 2005 as a 23-year-old boy after Jackson abused him as a child for seven years at any opportunity. Wade Robson, who, after exposing his allegations, set up a charity organization where he claimed on his homepage that his wife Amanda was also a victim of sexual abuse, which clearly denies them in the documentary shown (a mistake, Robson immediately corrected, but there are screenshots). Wade Robson, who wanted to marry his wife Amanda at Neverland Ranch, the place where he was abused for seven years. Wade Robson, who scattered roses all over the place, asking for a Jackson tribute show in 2011 and Jackson, after refusing to write a book about Jackson's abuse in 2012 that does not have a publishing house wanted. Wade Robson, who changed the story of his abuse tens of times since 2012, to finally tell her in 2019 in incredible detail obsession. Wade Robson, who questioned his mother in e-mails about the truth of a story he had snatched up, exposing them as a lie ("Wow, none of that is true"), and then incorporating them into his allegations anyway. Wade Robson, who melodramasically burns his fan devotions in "Leaving Neverland," which are all counterfeits because he proved he sold the real items back in 2011 due to monetary problems. Wade Robson, who studiously concealed his $ 100 million lawsuit against Jackson Real Estate. Wade Robson, who completely forgot to mention in the documentary, that Jackson, at his request, made him acquainted with his niece Brandi Jackson, into which he had a crush on himself exactly at the time he loved Michael Jackson and almost him abused daily, anal penetrated bloody and taught him to hate women.
Wade Robson, who quite forgot to mention that he "went out" with said Brandi Jackson from that point on and developed into a serious 8-year relationship, which finally ended in 2002, when Robson and his girlfriend Brandi with several women, u.a. Britney Spears cheated. Wade Robson, who felt intimidated by Jackson having lunch with his family, was forced to say the untruth at the trial in 2005, although the lunch actually took place after (!) The trial, as confirmed not only by the Jackson family, but also and other witnesses, such as Brett Barnes, who, in turn, together with Macaulay Culkin, took the place of Robson and Safechuck on the side of Jackson, when they were too old. Both defend Jackson to this day and Barnes is preparing a lawsuit against HBO because the documentary suggests he was abused by Jackson.
James Safechuck, who was implored by Jackson to testify and feel his anger when he said no, even though Safechuck did not appear on any witness list and never, in any way, was relevant to the process in any way. James Safechuck, who realized only in 2013 that he was abused by Jackson, whose mother danced with joy in 2009, when Jackson died. James Safechuck claims to have been abused in the Neverland train station, although it was not completed until 1994. At this time, Safechuck was already 16 years old and the alleged abuse was already over for 2 years.
Imagining these inconsistencies inevitably raises the question of how to spread the accusations that are served in Leaving Neverland so unchallenged. Either a journalist does not know these things, then he is unfit for his job. Or he knows these things and still writes tendentious articles to the detriment of Jackson, then this contradicts all journalistic standards and he is unsuitable for his job. Or he knows these things and scandalized Jackson against a better monster, then he is a liar and unfit for his job. Although I'm not sure if the latter is not even a requirement for some open journalist posts. For the director Dan Reed this is certainly true, for example when he shamelessly shortens the documentary by 45 minutes in order to clear it of all vulnerable statements.
One could pass on endlessly and contrary to the opinion of the media, according to which various Michael Jackson fan pages are painting their parallel world of conspiracy theories, excellent and highly respectable detective work is done there, which makes the vast majority of journalists, whose job this research should actually be, look pale. There you can find the facts. In "Leaving Neverland," just the accusations without the spark of proof. This raises the question: how is it possible that the media propagate this story completely unreflective and their articles usually only act on whether you can separate the music of Jackson from the monster Jackson? Here we come to the heart of my article, which will inevitably be shorter after the initiation has been longer than expected.
For one thing, Michael Jackson was and is an easy victim. Which adult man surrounds himself most of the time with strange children and lets them sleep in his bedroom? For another, Jackson, despite his wealth, was simply a pop singer with no political weight. Did you know, for example, that in the 1996 Dutroux scandal in Belgium, 27 witnesses lost their lives before they could testify in court? Probably not, because when it comes to the political establishment - and it is obvious that influential forces were behind this child molester scandal - the media prefer to hold back in anticipatory obedience. Did you know that a huge pedophile scandal is currently surfacing in the UK, involving high-ranking politicians, judges, police officers, and probably even intelligence officials, or at best, you've read it "further down the drain"?
Jackson's harmless way of dealing with children has a strange effect on us within our cultural norms, and yet there is a psychological explanation for this aside from sexual interests. If we blame Michael Jackson unthinkingly for these things, that says more about us than about Michael Jackson. Carl Gustav Jung called it the shadow that we do not want to see in ourselves and therefore project it onto others in order to hate you for it. Do you still know which girls were perceived as "sluts" or "snooty" in your youth? What did all these girls have in common? They were pretty! And so the less great guys had to depreciate them because they knew they would never get them to bed and the less pretty girls had to depreciate them to stabilize their self worth. This is a classic shadow of youth. Our collective shadow in Jackson's case is not a pedophile offender, but it reflects our unquestionable cultural norms that make it obvious that we have lost all connection to innocent access to children, and even lost our inner child, which is now pathological has, for example, when we are already startled, when a strange man even addresses our child or even censors the sexual parts of babies on television. This is our illness and Jackson has pointed it out to us in an extreme way, which is why we have to label him as a pervert in order to perceive ourselves as healthy.
We do not even realize that with Michael Jackson we re-stage the basic structure of a myth that we all know is the Christ Allegory. Unlike Jackson with his human errors, Christ is the archetype of the innocent human being. He did not provoke a specific shadow in the human reaction but all the shadows. As a man without sin, according to the myth, his sheer existence was unbearable for his environment - it reminded people of their own sinfulness. Some recognized their shadows through Christ, repented and followed his example. Others, in their search for sins in this symbol of purity, plundered and conspired against him. Unlike Jackson, Christ did not resist the accusations, but took on the shadow of the angry people projected on him and was crucified by them. With this act of self-abandonment, Christ reflected all shadows back on their originators, so offered no attack surface and thus forced the people to become aware of their evil sides and to face them. Christ did not die for our sins, but because of our sins. With his crucifixion, we crucified everything we hated of ourselves, which is why the elevated cross should always remind us of our own sins and therefore became a symbol of repentance and repentance.
Actually, we must be grateful to Wade Robson and James Safechuck for giving them the chance to reopen the entire media-distorted history of Jackson, and I have this strange feeling that it could end this time with a bang, the Jackson forever cleanses. I make no secret of the fact that I think Michael Jackson is now completely innocent and he has wrested in the course of my research a lot of respect, for all the good that he did to other people. This man, who never recovered from the allegations in 1993 and won a Pyrrhic victory in 2005 as a broken man and finally broke it, was a victim of our cultural shadow. It was a crusade against a shy, fragile and sensitive man who could only be himself in the presence of children who meant everything to him. A man betrayed by money-hungry parents and crucified by the media under the applause of onlookers because of the belief in "the pure goodness of humankind," as Wade Robson wrote in a 2009 article after Jackson's death ("he is [ ... one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind "), some seem unbearable.
