My GoFundMe campaign for a family in Gaza was denied under review for transfer because the transaction method included Crypto. My plan was for the donation money to be transferred to my bank and then that transfer money be converted to crypto because Crypto seems to be the only way money gets to Gaza.
If there are any alternatives please tell me. This is urgent
In June Chandler's 2005 testimony, she says that Michael cried about Jordan not being allowed to sleep in the same bed as him. Michael pleaded and said "Why? There's nothing wrong with it. Aren't we a family?"
Afterwards June relented and allowed it to happen and he latter bought her a bracelet. This sort of disturbed me hearing about it. Im not saying this was his intention, and Ive read everything else about the 1993 case and so on so I don't believe he physically harmed Jordan, but it sounds manipulative. What do you guys think?
I haven't heard about this until today. this has me stumped. What's the explanation/context for MJ standing near the end of the bed Aaron Carter was using to sleep in? According to Carter he was still somewhat asleep, but is there any additional context to this?
Also I thought MJ didnt give drugs to kids, but he and Aaron smoked weed together?
I don't know if I fully believe in manifestations or not but I would write down and create a vision board once in a while without dedicating that much time to see them and forgetting to repeat the words over and over again consistently.
One of my aspirations when I was 16-17 was to get a girlfriend. I dont know if I had someone particular in mind (most likely not but I cant be sure) but i visualized and wrote down that I would get a girlfriend.
Now Im questioning myself and past relationships. Because if I manifested having a partner, did this mean that I stripped a person of their autonomy and free will by having them date me??? Once again I dont know if manifestations work or not and most of these relationships were online (but we did talk sexual and stuff) but the possibility of me being a rapist all along is horrifying to me.
Is basically wishing for something like this stripping a person of their autonomy and free will?
This is something I've been wondering about for some time. He claimed he experienced police brutality but the claims were proven false. But there's a photo of his arm having an injury on his arm. So what really happened?
Getting a lower dose of Sertraline (from 200 to 100mg) with 25mg of Strattera. Has anyone tried this combination before? If so please tell me the experience
Getting a lower dose of Sertraline (from 200 to 100mg) with 25mg of Strattera. Has anyone tried this combination before? If so please tell me the experience
I recently learned of a meeting Michael had with George Michael, about creating an anti-apartheid charity for South Africa. Apparently Michael was acting weird the whole time to the point one might even call it rude, either intentionally or unintentionally. He didn't look George straight in the eye and only referred to his manager. He also didn't do the charity because he didn't wanna be "too political".
I saw people on another subreddit say that this was a "power play" to embarrass George and proof that Michael was "only black when convenient" and only spoke up about causes to further exude his image and to fuel his ego.
I really didn't know what to make of it, I'm not saying Michael was a bad person for this isolated incident we don't know the full story to, but it did disappoint me that he didn't wanna do it because it was "too political". However I'm not sold on the "OH all of his philanthropy and political messages were all for nothing and he just wanted to prop himself up!" but I can't really refute it because I can't think of anything that would challenge this notion about him. What do you guys think?
I've been seeing people on this subreddit talk about how Michael thought black people were ugly. I think it is a disgusting misinterpretation (possibly on purpose) of what Michael was really trying to say with this letter.
"Throughout history, White men have always branded the pages of history with great White hopes, putting Whites over Blacks as nobles. Elvis as the king of rock and roll, Springsteen as the Boss, or the Beatles as the best. Yes, these guys were good, but they weren't better singers or dancers than the Blacks. The difference is White control of the press and media, making the public believe whatever they want. (Written in red) Plus, a lot of Blacks have been ugly to look at. You MUST be beautiful.
I will change this with my songs, dance, looks, and total reclusiveness. I will rule as the king. I am not prejudiced; it's just time for the first Black king now"
If you read the whole thing, it is clearly criticizing how whites are able to control the narratives on black people. It is literally just a fact that white people have been devaluing the influence black people have had on music, and yes, they have even influenced the way nlack people have been visually perceived.
The two sentences written in red are obviously written from the perspective of the average racist mind, not Michael's actual thoughts. And it doesn't make any sense for him to just write abkut how black people are ugly out of nowhere when for most of the letter he's praising black people and talking about how white people control the media.
It's just something that's been really bothering me, seeing people misinterpret this letter and look at it with bad faith because of their biased view of Michael.
So, I know how a lot of people say that the description did and did not match, and I know that it didn't, but how is the description matching or not relevant? Vitiligo was a lesser known condition back in the day, and its known that new Vitiligo spots can appear even in a 6 month time period (the latest possibility of Michael abusing Jordan being July of 1993 and the strip search happening in December of that year). Doesn't this hurt the case for Michael's innocence a bit and leave more room for the possibility of him being guilty? Because people will be like, well it changed! So of course it wasn't accurate
This has been going around for the past few days. I've seen fans explaining that the photos have both been shared by Prince and Paris, but i cant seem to find any proof of this. Would like to see that so I can explain to people. Also, do we even have the full context to these photos? Was anyone else in attendance? Did Michael plan this himself? We're they just doing a play wedding?
I've seen people say he has changed his story over the years but to me it's just been mostly the same. I know it was described as phone sex at first but Terry said the tabloids sensationalized it by calling it phone sex rather than an "inappropriate unconsenual call".
And why has Terry gone on to still give interviews after 1993 (up till 2009) about Michael even after he became a millionaire?
Also, what did ever happen to the other recordings with Michael that were confiscated by the police?
I just recently discovered Leif Garrett's story about Michael asking him to teach him to masturbate. Leif was 17 and Michael was 20. Now, this doesn't strike me as evidence for his guilt cuz of how close in age they are and they were peers, but I recently just thought of how similar Terry George's story is to Leif's.
Terry claimed that he and Michael stroke up a friendship and one night Michael masturbated on call. This made Terry upset and Michael knew about this but they still were friends and frequently called until Terry's parents made it stop due to high phone bills.
And most of the rebuttals to Terry's story don't satisfy the devil's advocate in me. What if Terry didn't realize he had been abused until 1993 after the Chandler situation was made public? What if Terry just backtracked cuz he truly did forgive Michael for what he did and still looked up to him (what he did was wrong but I forgive him)? What if he was embarrassed about telling how he got assaulted? What if Michael himself didnt realize what he was doing?
I want Michael to be innocent but none of the rebuttals for Terry satisfy me. I'm a victim myself and im aware how complicated things are for the victim and the perpetrator's mindset. I'm confident on the rest of the allegations being false but this has been bugging me. I ask for you all to be patient please. I've been running myself up a wall trying to prove that hes innocent for the past 6 months. If anyone has anything I would appreciate it if you can talk about it in the replies
Sources: Leif Garrett on MJ https://youtu.be/e412oRk8duk
Terry's story on MJ https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/first-target-of-michael-jacksons-obsession-402845
Now the books dont really matter to me at all anymore because the "crazy pedophile" having only 2 books dedicated to naked boys among his larger art book collection (books that were gifted to him nonetheless by a fan OR Nambla members and ones he didnt seek out)
But why would NAMBLA particular want Michael to get a hold of these books? Why did they have an interest in him? The books were gifted to him in the early 80s, but I can't recall Michael being that openly fixated on children and childhood before/up to that point.
There are some possibilities
\- Michael and Tatum's relationship in the 70s. Not anything serious nor did they have sex but the age gap is striking to someone in more recent times. But seeing how the tabloids talked about it i dont think their age gap was seen as necessarily pedophilic in the public's eye considering now one pointed it out as problematic.
\- Michael and Emmanuel Lewis' relationship. Platonic friends and was shown in public as such but NAMBLA may have looked at it another way. Still this was before his open innocent fixation on kids was prominent for a pattern to be noticed. Not writing it off entirely though
What do you all think? I'd love to discuss about this or to learn about/remind myself about certain info
Michael was known to have an affinity for photography and art. He had over 10,000 books that were art books, novels, etc., and we know that he had a more nuanced and eccentric view on a lot of things. He had a lot of books that contained artistic nudity of people from all ages. He also referenced a lot of paintings in his music videos and album covers (You Are Not Alone music video references a painting and Lisa Marie is in the place of a nude child, he also commissioned a work with nude angel babies crowning him).
I see a lot of people use him owning those two books as evidence for his guilt, but I think its definitely likely that he didn't see nudity as inherently sexual when it came to The Boys: a photographic essay, if he ever did see the book. I understand he wasn't as stunted as one may think, but he often did things that he didnt think were a big deal at the moment but eventually became a whole other thing and got misinterpreted/twisted. I wouldn't have kept it personally but seeing how he thought of artistic nudity I can see why it was apart of his larger collection of books and didnt think it was anything to worry about. Also keep in mind the likelihood he didn't really read these books and just kept it as part of collection. He was a known hoarder with over thousands of books
To a lot of people, MJ fans who defend him are just celebrity worshippers and pedo defenders. But in reality, a real defender of MJ is not like that at all.
Due to his disturbing amount of fame, he is one of the most lied about people on Earth. A lot of the stuff people say about him are straight up lies ("he wanted to be white and was a self hating black man and distanced himself from black culture, his 3 kids arent biologically his, he only hung out with white boys, he was castrated"). They've been spreading lies about him in the tabloids since the 70s. Even before he was 18! And don't even get me started on the tabloids calling him a monkey from the 80s to this day.
A lot of people make these false stories about Michael and when they tell of them people pass it off as the truth. Billie Jean is half about his own experiences of a girl lying about him being the father of his twins. There was a woman on Dr Phil who said that she was the inspiration for Smooth Criminal. There was this teenager in the 90s who made this elaborate story about MJ molesting him. There's this one dude who held his umbrella ONCE and has told the public he was MJ's bodyguard for years.
And a lot of the bias that people hold against him come from thinking he is ugly, scary, and strange. Nobody was talking about what was said in the Cascio 60 minutes interview, instead they just took that photo of MJ and one of the Cascio children (a photo they had for years) and tried to pass it off as "proof" that he was a child rapist.
And people make these disingenuous comparisons to R Kelly, Saville, and Epstein. All 3 of these men have shit recorded whether on camera or on audio or written down about their wrong doings. All of the letters and video recordings that MJ made are not like that in any sense.
It's disappointing because I've seen people who are intelligent and conscious and claim they are for the oppressed not understand why people think he's innocent. I hate it especially when me and MJ's own race regurgitate this garbage.
Michael was known to have an affinity for photography and art. He had over 10,000 books that were art books, novels, etc., and we know that he had a more nuanced and eccentric view on a lot of things. He had a lot of books that contained artistic nudity of people from all ages. He also referenced a lot of paintings in his music videos and album covers (You Are Not Alone music video references a painting and Lisa Marie is in the place of a nude child, he also commissioned a work with nude angel babies crowning him).
I see a lot of people use him owning those two books as evidence for his guilt, but I think its definitely likely that he didn't see nudity as inherently sexual when it came to The Boys: a photographic essay.
the books/issues were often small, and were very very thin like a comic book or a magazine