The Bashir interview revealed, primarily (although amongst other things), that PedoPan does not understand nor does he respect the necessary emotional and physical boundaries of children. An adult should not be a best friend or a playmate. He should not be having constant, rules-free romps in a Pleasure Island environment of hedonism sans all other adult/parental presence. He should not be showering or bathing with children. He should not be sharing a bed, or even a bedroom, with children. (You don’t sleep with/cuddle your best friend anyway, do you?) This is not healthy, nor sweet, nor loving, nor suitable. None of this behavior is appropriate or excusable or understandable because a child does not have the emotional capabilities to understand things like this. A child cannot assert his or her boundaries like the average, emotionally healthy adult can. A child is not in the position to deal with this kind of stuff!
If it was Jack Nicholson or Rosie O’Donnell or Colin Farrell or Gwyneth Paltrow chirping that they loved to share their bed with children and shower with them and have week-long slumber parties with no rules and were “best friends” with an array of children and trotted out a parade of pre-adolescent protégées, what would the public’s reaction be? Hell, beyond the whole Celebrity Mystique, what if it was the average Joe or Jane (as opposed to the average Joe and Katherine) – like your next-door neighbor – who was all “best friends” with various children and was sharing a bed with children and showering with them and had a secret room and separated the parents and girls from the young boys and took the children on toy-store sprees and had “no rules” party weekends at his/her house, wouldn’t the neighbors be suspicious that something stinks in suburbia? More than that, the general public would have drawn and quartered and tarred and feathered and stoned the person before throwing the scraps to the neighborhood dogs.
But because it’s MICHAEL JACKSON, everything is different.
Hell, the fact that he IS Michael Jackson is just one facet of his role as perpetrator. He is, arguably, the most famous person in the world. I would bet five bucks that more people would recognize a picture of him than they would any of the heads of state, any Hollywood star past or present, Albert Einstein, Oprah, or even some of their own relatives. That alone carries enormous weight. When the most famous man in the world starts waving credit cards and plane tickets and keys to new cars at you, your head is going to spin… especially if, as in most cases with FUBAR, you are a poor and/or immigrant family, disadvantaged, and just plain not in the position to refuse the riches-beyond-your-wildest-dreams plums that the Most Famous Man in the World is dangling in front of you like an infant off a 4 th floor hotel balcony. That kind of seduction would be hard enough for the average adult to deal with. What about a child?
Seeing the interview with MJ and the 12-year-old boy (who was named in my original version of this rant that I wrote the morning after the Bashir doc aired, but here, in light of the litigious circumstances, is not, even though I’m well aware it’s easily found in the general media) clinched it for me. The way he interacted with Michael Jackson was not the natural way a pre-teen boy would interact with an adult, nor the natural way a pre-teen boy would interact with a “best friend.” This kind of behavior – leaning his head submissively, joking that C’est FUBAR was “a four-year-old” – is not the kind of thing a child will come up with all on his own, but rather, is behavior that he has picked up, things he heard from other adults around him, things that have been encouraged by his “best friend” Michael Jackson. Behavior that has been enforced by a perpetrator.
Even if no actual sexual abuse took place, I wrote at the time, the fact that Michael Jackson was having this kind of a boundary-trodding, unequal, unbalanced, unhealthy relationship with a child was abusive enough. “___ survived cancer, but who on earth could survive Michael Jackson?!” I wrote to friends. How could this child, ANY child, assert himself to The Most Famous Adult in the World? Michael Jackson is in a position of greater power in any given relationship. If there are bigwigs at Sony who’re intimidated by Michael Jackson and all he represents, then how can the average working-class adult deal with him… much less a child? HOW CAN ANY PERSON, MUCH LESS A CHILD, EVER SAY NO TO MICHAEL JACKSON?
[CAPTION: No. This is not a natural body language for an adolescent boy. Wrong.]
Turns out, this is only a comparative ripple on the surface; there’s a whole, deadly, and dangerous reef underneath it all.
I cannot stress this enough: Sexual abuse – rape, pedophilia, incest, all flavors and colors – is not about sexual attraction or love or passion or desire; it’s about control. “As long as the child is induced into sexual activity with someone who is in a position of greater power, whether that power is derived through the perpetrator’s age, size, status, or relationship, the act is abusive. A child who cannot refuse, or who believes she or he cannot refuse, is a child who has been violated” (emphasis mine).
Can any child – or his or her parent, or the Neverland gardener or the Filipino maid who’s only been in America for a few months, or the folks at the Toys “R” Us, or Sony, or even PedoPan’s own family – refuse Michael Jackson? Everything we’ve seen in the media indicates that not only is it nearly impossible to say “no” to the self-proclaimed King of Pop, he doesn’t hear it the few times someone dares to try.
The discrepancies between C’est FUBAR’s words and his actions are amazing. I mean, he claims to love children and think they’re wonderful and innocent and magical. Then… why isn’t he more concerned for their emotional well-being? If he really loves children like he claims to, he’d understand that a parent would usually be inclined to protect that child, and wouldn’t have a problem with boundaries like “it’s not appropriate for my son to sleep with you” being asserted if it’s in the child’s best interest (which, no fucking shit, it is). But instead he whines and cries and goes all “Why do you think it’s dirty? It’s not! It’s sweet ‘n innocent! I loooove children!” and manipulates the parents to get what he wants: a boy in bed.
REASONABLE DOUBT: The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt… is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. To be beyond a reasonable doubt means that to the jury there isn’t a real possibility that the defendant didn’t commit the act.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, there is not a real possibility that Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. His actions, his attitude, his demeanor, and even the way others react to him are clear indicators.
Child molestation is an elusive issue, and it’s really only in the last decade or so that America, as a society, has REALLY begun to discuss it. It wasn’t too long ago that it was considered a mild idiosyncrasy to have a “funny uncle” in the family, and girls were just told to avoid Uncle Jim if he’d had too much to drink at the Memorial Day picnic. After all, you wouldn’t want to upset Aunt Bobbie or Mother or anyone by suggesting that maybe playing touchy-feeling with the kids wasn’t… appropriate? (Besides, I hear little Janie is kind of hyperactive and flirtatious. She probably should take SOME of the blame, right? She asked for it.) In many cultures, this is still the rule: you do NOT discuss sex, sexual behavior, or anything potentially inflammatory like this; you do NOT risk disgracing your family.
And it’s not like America is all that much better. After all, look at what’s happened for generations with all the PedoPriests! Why, it’s UNCHRISTIAN to not forgive and forget! How can we be so UNCHARITABLE and UNLOVING as to accuse a person of God of such a heinous act! What would Jesus do?
(Even Jesus thinks pedophiles needs to rot in hell. Jesus hung out with hookers and lawyers, not kiddie diddlers.)
Despite recent media attention, most pedophiles do not sneak into strange girls’ bedrooms and kidnap them at night. No one wants to believe that instead of the dirty stranger in the abandoned house down the street, the pedophiles who abuse ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE CHILDREN are likely your husband’s best friend, your bible-study leader, your son’s preschool teacher, your pastor, the adolescent cousin who LOVES children, your daughter’s softball coach, the sweet lady across the street, the uncle who spoils your children with amazing gifts at holidays, your grandfather, your mom’s uxorious new husband, your husband, your favorite uncle, your brother, your daughter, your son-in-law, your stepson, hell, even the relative that molested YOU! Anyone can be a child molester. Anyone can be a pedophile.
Somehow the leap from child molestation as a… thing, an abstract concept… to child molestation as a reality, an actuality, is still impossible for most people to make. Some people can’t understand that molestation is not as cut-and-dried an event as a rape in a dark alley at knifepoint. Most pedos will not strike, beat, or physically restrain their victims. They don’t approach every single kid they see and demand “Touch it!” A hell of a lot more has to happen (and while I hate gimmicky terms in the media, I’m glad for the whole “grooming” discourse, because at least then people might start realizing how much has to happen before the actual touching/kissing/etc. takes place). Some of the behavior might not even strike most people as pedophilia or abuse, like Michael Jackson holding Macaulay Culkin and doing a little leg touchy-feely while they played a video game. Lil’ Mac may not've realized what was going on (or, if he did, may have repressed it, or even just may not now want to be known as the former-child-star-who-got-diddled-by-Michael-Jackson), even if PedoPan was getting off from here to Indonesia. It's sort of like how some pedos will record diaper commercials or children’s TV shows, or have collections of relatively innocuous “art” pictures of kids. The child may not be overtly sexually exploited, but that doesn't make the adult any less of a pedophile. And it’s one step closer to overt abuse. This behavior is progressive. It’s a crime of opportunity.
But it’s easier to make excuses, to pretend you’d be overreacting if you see something amiss (like, oh, MICHAEL JACKSON LICKING YOUR SON’S HEAD, MAYBE?!), to rationalize that you might hurt someone’s feelings or upset them if you say “Hey… this isn’t appropriate.” AS IF PROTECTING YOUR CHILD ISN’T THE MOST IMPORTANT THING!?
It’s also harder for people to wrap their minds around any pedophilia that isn’t the stereotypical Dirty Old Man/Lolita scenario. Pedophilia is about control, not just sexual attraction or desire. It is about being in charge, about intimidation and coercion, about not feeling powerless or inferior; it happens because pedophiles cannot have sexual relations with an equal or a superior partner. Stigmas and stereotypes still abound, and fighting them will take generations of education. Men who molest boys are not (all) homosexual, and are not recruiting for some gay agenda. Vili Fualaau did not “get lucky.” Priests do not “have” to molest because they are celibate, and letting them marry would solve everyone’s problems. I repeat, pedophilia is about control and power, not love or attraction or orgasms.
Have you seen any of the media coverage? Heard any of the talk-show coverage? Can you blame people, in this kind of environment, for not going after child molesters more?! Putting children on the witness stand in front of their abusers and expecting them to testify to a jury of adults is akin to abuse in itself. What the defense puts them through alone is cruel enough; it wasn’t too long ago that there was a case in San Diego – I believe it was a step-daughter/step-father case, but it might have been a family friend – that went to trial, and they put this child on the stand and let the man’s attorney question her endlessly, trying to convince the jury that this child was a “seductive girl-woman” who set out to ensnare this adult man-
As if a child could even begin to comprehend, much less manipulate, the dynamics of a sexual relationship? And AS IF THE ADULT DIDN’T KNOW BETTER?!
The current Michael Jackson case, played out second-by-second in the media, has to be just as horrific for the two boys testifying. Not only do they have the Cult of the Wounded, Tremulous Starchild threatening them – CHILDREN! – with the same kind of violence that drove Jackson’s ’93 accuser into hiding, but there’s just the everyday horrors of testifying, of repeating over and over what has to be brutally difficult and shameful, and of not being believed by the very people who are supposed to take care of and protect them. Ripping apart a child’s “credibility” like this is disgusting; I'm just so fucking sick of the word-games of the lawyers when they’ve been testifying. It’s misleading to all the stupid people who watch or listen and think “Gosh, the kid willingly spent the night with Michael Jackson how many times? Maybe Michael Jackson didn’t- ”
Just because the child didn't immediately scream "STOP TOUCHING ME!" and kick PedoPan in his beady nuts does not mean he wasn't abused. Again, this is why most victims (and their parents) don't pursue legal action. Unless there's a dead body with semen, or a pre-adolescent vagina with scar tissue, or pictures/video of the victim, it's all down to one person's word against another. And, as has been said ten million times, most children do not usually just make this shit up! And frankly, I’m more concerned about the effects on the boys that have been subjected to Neverland than I am about someone hurting the feelings of a self-loathing, mutilated, famewhore fucktard like C’est FUBAR. C’est FUBAR is no poor, innocent victim: those children, those young boys are. And so are the fans that believe in him.
To be beyond a reasonable doubt means … there isn’t a real possibility that the defendant didn’t commit the act.
No matter how much whining and crying Michael Jackson does in the public eye about how much he loves children, I don’t believe his bullshit. No one should. Sorry to rain on your parade, but most child molesters insist they love children and would never do anything to hurt them. That’s what they believe. That’s how they live with themselves and rationalize their actions. The cousin who molested me for years said as much when I confronted him as an adult. “I would never hurt you! I love you!” I mean, denial, yeah, but moreover, there was also genuine shock that his actions could be perceived as “hurting” someone. That’s part of a molester’s justification. Some, in some way, really think they ARE showing love and affection for the child, or helping it, or… something.
Michael Jackson is not normal. He is not safe. He is not Peter Pan. He is not pure. He is not every child’s best friend. He is not just an overgrown 10-year-old. He is an adult, and must be held responsible for his actions, actions that are deeply psychologically damaging to the children he claims to “love.”
Frighteningly, the fact that his targets are little boys makes his pedophilia even more difficult for the average person to discern. What if he was saying and doing these things with little girls instead of little boys? Would there still be any question about his pedophilia?
He is a perpetrator, and he has a type. All of his young “best friends” are usually Latino or mixed, ages 10-14, thin and, well, boyish. They are Mini-Ideal-Michaels: pretty, dark but fair, encouraged to dress like him and dance like him and act like him. They are also usually from financially and/or emotionally disadvantaged homes, and are vulnerable in some significant way. You never see him with a “best friend” who is blond or chubby or nappy-haired or female. (This is also why I think that Princes Mach I and II and Paris are so obviously white and blond; often, pedophiles are afraid of having desires for their own children, so if Jackson’s offspring look less like his “type,” he’s less tempted. And can even rationalize that he’s not a molester because he’s not sexually abusing his OWN children.)
PedoPan also has a “secret room” attached to his bedroom, full of toys and kiddie paraphernalia. That is not normal. (And yeah, this comes from a woman who has a room full of toys herself. But the big difference is, mine is not secret, mine is not hidden, mine is not behind a secret door in a bedroom with an elaborate alarm system, mine is not where I entertain only young children with whom I have sleepovers.)
This is a seduction, as obvious as a “would you like to come in for a drink” and a crushed Rohypnol in a wineglass after a seemingly innocuous dinner date. And this behavior is not normal. No excuses should be made for it at the risk of a child or children. At all. Ever.
Michael Jackson’s camp churns out the hype, and has for decades, and naturally, most people – especially his fans – want to believe in what he’s presenting. He’s just a sweet, shy boy from Gary, Indiana who had a dream… and was able to live it. And now, out of the goodness of his pure heart, and because he loves children so much, he just wants to love everyone! Love! That’s what he’s all about, is love!
That’s a nice thought. It’s a lovely idea.
But pull your heads out of your asses and think critically!
Some fans claim that all these mean, nasty people are just out to extort money from Pure, Wondrous and Good Michael “100000% INNOCENT” Jackson because he’s so rich and successful and an easy target-
Easy target? A man who can afford more attorneys to back him than the average small town, can film prime-time rebuttal statements and flood the media with “his side” of things, and who’s managed to slip out of such allegations before? And if this is the case, then why aren’t there molestation charges filed against other rich celebrities? Bill Gates is generally hated, but also does a hell of a lot of charity work and work for disadvantaged children. Why isn’t he targeted by extorters? Or Bill Clinton, with his sexual reputation? I mean, if he nailed a dumb intern in the Oval Office, would it be much of a stretch for someone to claim he touched their teenaged daughter inappropriately? “It’s because he’s a black man!” some will shriek. Really? It seems to me like a few black men have gotten get-out-of-jail-free cards for committing atrocious acts… as long as they’re rich and famous. An argument like that is racist and short-sighted to the REAL, every-day black men and women who suffer from racial targeting. Michael Jackson is only black when it’s convenient for him to present himself as a victim of racism. Calling himself a victim of racism on par with Nelson Mandela and Muhammad Ali is not only inaccurate, it’s offensively egotistical. And if rich blacks are being targeted for extortion by evil people, why hasn’t anyone filed molestation charges against Oprah? Realistically, how many other rich and/or black celebrities have been targets of repeated false child molestation allegations? And plus, the people who cry “Conspiracy! Extortion!” are missing the point that THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, NOT A CIVIL CASE! Mikey’s not being sued for a dollar amount! He’s being charged with crimes against a child, and there was more than enough evidence against him to merit a trial in the first place! Hell, in the second place!
Of course, in that vein, it’s quite telling that the greatest proponent of an Anti-Michael Jackson Conspiracy is… Michael Jackson: In 2000, during an AOL interview, he said, "Once I started breaking sales records -- I broke Elvis Presley's record, I broke The Beatles' record -- once I started doing that, overnight, they called me a freak, a homosexual, a child molester. They said I bleached my skin. They did everything they could to turn the public against me. It's a conspiracy." Start looking around at his interviews; this isn’t a singular occurrence.
Wait, I mean- right! Absolutely! A conspiracy! The Man is just out to get Michael Jackson! If Michael says it, it must be true! Because Michael doesn’t lie! HE TOLD US HE DIDN’T LIE!
Be careful of what you do ’cause the lie becomes the truth.
I have particular hatred for the fans that seem to think that Michael is an angel on earth and certainly as good and pure as Jesus and most likely the new Messiah touched by the finger of God and consecrated as the Second Coming. They claim to love and support Michael because he’s a good, kind, loving person, and he believes children are good and kind and pure… and then turn around and accuse all of his victims of being demonic liars. They love Michael because he gives them strength and courage to be good people… and then, with frighteningly violent language at times, trash anyone who comes out against their (False) Idol, be it an attorney or judge, critic, or, hell, anyone who suggests that Michael is ANYTHING LESS THAN A PERFECT BEING WALKING THE EARTH!
Kids? It don’t add up!
I suppose this isn’t surprising, considering that these are the same fans that, on their forums, have settings that replace “bad” words like “pedophile” and “child molester” with a bunch of asterisks. Because plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LAAAAAAA! EEEE hee hee!" will make it go away! This is beyond, like, Gramma and Aunt Lois just naively wanting to believe the twaddle that PedoPan has been spewing for decades.
Love is blind, but gawd DAMN, people!
And no one’s gonna save
you from the
beast about to strike…
One fan on the MJFANCLUB site claimed that they knew FUBAR wasn’t a pedophile because “his soul is soft.” The fuck? “Michael could have any woman he wants! Why would he molest a boy?” Because that’s what pedophiles do, brain trust. “He’s never been convicted of a crime!” And that means he’s not guilty? Anyone in America should know that just because you aren’t convicted of something doesn’t make you innocent. “I feel sorry for those people who have to believe the worst all the time!” Well, when it comes to PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL ABUSE, I feel sorry for those people who have blinders on. One especially scary MJFan actually posted that she hoped that “if my child was molested by Michael I hope he’d know what an honor it was!!!!” That woman not only ought to have her own children removed from her care, but should be beaten with her own uterus and strangled with her fallopian tubes. She makes Debbie Rowe sound like Mother of the Decade.
Just because you love the guy’s music doesn’t mean he’s innocent. Or infallible. I dig my share of James Brown and Chuck Barry and Ike ‘n Tina, but c’mon…. One does not preclude the other. Utilize some genuine critical thinking skills, y’all. People who notice disturbingly suspicious behavior and want to protect children are not the “ignorant” ones. However, the fucktards who claim that Michael “WOULD NEVER HURT A CHILD!!!!” because he… said so…? Beyond ignorant. Pork stupid.
This “He’s special! He’s not like other people! He never had a childhood!” defense is a crock of steaming shit. So he didn’t have a childhood because he had a mean daddy who hit him and called him “big nose” and made fun of his (in PedoPan’s words) “nigger hair” and had to tour with his band all the time…? So fucking what? All over this country, all over the world, are children who are battered, tormented, hurt, who are sexually and physically and emotionally abused. There are children whose parents do drugs or drink or cook meth in the kitchen or abandon them. There are children who live so far below the poverty line that they never get new clothes, toys, basic health care, or even balanced meals. There are children who are beaten with bicycle chains, burned with cigarettes, locked in closets, and left to starve to death in filthy hovels. MICHAEL FUCKING JACKSON IS NOT SPECIAL IN THIS RESPECT! HE DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT GET A FREE PASS FOR ANY ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF IT! HE IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS! HE KNOWS RIGHT FROM WRONG! HE’S FORTY-SIX YEARS OLD! GROW THE FUCK UP! Would any other adult in this country be able to get away with that? “Yeah, I molested that child/killed someone/beat my spouse/bombed a building/was the D.C. Sniper/stole a pack of gum, but, you know, I never had a real childhood….”
So it’s okay if he fucks up childhood for HOW many others…?
Just as with a mugger, a rapist, a serial killer, or a petty thief, pedophiles look for targets that are vulnerable. Happy, healthy, well-adjusted children are not the usual victims of child abuse. Pedophiles do not target secure and contented families. Pedos will find children, families, and situations in which they can easily prey… and defend themselves. Like any predator, they seek out the weakest: Chaotic families. Insecure people. Easily-intimidated people. Scared families. Stupid people. And if they get accused of anything, it’s easy to say “Oh, the mother’s just crazy!” “That kid’s a brat!” “The father is violent!” “I was just trying to help them, but they’re ungrateful and greedy!” A secure, assertive child who would scream “DON’T TOUCH ME! LEAVE ME ALONE! MOMMY! DADDY!” is not going to blip a pedo’s radar.
Whether or not PedoPan will be convicted in a court of law remains to be seen. Having to have faith in this jury is terrifying. All I can hope is that after OJ and Robert Blake, MAYBE somewhere, somehow, the thought that "We can't let another rich celeb get away with a crime" will hold up. But at this point, I have no faith in the average jury to understand what “reasonable doubt” means in a case of pedophilia. No one’s going to have grainy video surveillance of Michael Jackson diddling the housekeeper’s kid. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It doesn’t matter if the mom’s a crack whore. It doesn’t matter if the dad is a drunk. It doesn’t matter if the kid is a demon-seed, or good in school, or dying of leukemia, or Haitian, or allergic to strawberries. None of that means that, conclusively, s/he was or wasn’t molested. In
I only wish this picture was
Sadly, it is part of a full-size oil painting
that PedoPan has in his home.
fact, anyone who’s familiar with the psychology of pedophiles and their victims can
tell you that bad behavior may
be one of the indicators that
the child WAS molested!
This situation is beyond “can’t see the forest for the trees.”
But no matter what the jury decides, based on everything from the evidence they are given to the peculiar ticks and personalities that actually make up the jury, one fact remains:
Michael Jackson is still a child molester.
PREVIOUS PAGE:|:NEXT PAGE: