Michael Jackson's Victory
My own view is that Michael Jackson's 'victory'
(not quite the right word) in achieving 'not guilty' verdicts on all the charges
levied against him at his trial for child abuse should be considered a victory
I know very little indeed about the details of
the case - so I could be talking rubbish - but from what I can gather the
accusations came from people who were tainted very significantly by past
histories that reflected a considerable degree of dishonesty on their parts
and/or a strong tendency to be motivated more by the prospect of receiving money
than telling the truth..
And so if Michael Jackson had been found guilty
under these circumstances this would have surely added even further evidence to
suggest that the American justice system is nowadays often little more than a cruel hoax.
My reasons for believing that Michael Jackson's
victory is a victory for all men are as follows.
1. We now know that the number of innocent
men who are accused, prosecuted and/or imprisoned for sexual offences is
positively huge. And much evidence also suggests that the percentage
of false allegations reported to the police nowadays exceeds the percentage
of true allegations by some considerable amount.
The reasons for this by and large stem from the
unfounded self-serving global hysteria that has been manufactured and
orchestrated by the gargantuan parasitic abuse industry and by the feminists for some three decades,
and from the wholesale corruption of the justice system when it comes to matters
men nowadays often have to prove their innocence
In most court cases concerning 'abuse' men
nowadays often have to prove their innocence and evidence that is highly
relevant to the issue of their innocence is often kept hidden from the juries.
And with much of the public also heavily
indoctrinated with the view that women and children 'do not lie' over matters of
abuse, it is normally very easy to convict a man of abuse - particularly of
sexual abuse, and particularly of child sexual abuse.
The Michael Jackson verdict therefore suggests that the
public might be becoming more aware of the fact that women and children do, indeed,
lie over such matters - and often do so - and this victory also suggests that the malicious tide forever being
generated by the abuse industry and the feminists might, finally, be turning.
And this 'not guilty' verdict will actually help
this tide to turn.
2. Testimony and evidence in a serious criminal case that does not give rise to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' situation means "not guilty" as far as I am concerned. And
people must try to understand just how important it is that the prosecution proves its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' before finding a man
guilty of any serious crime; even though this is often going to be difficult
when it comes to sexual or 'relationship' offences, where there are often no objective witnesses present to see whatever happened.
the jury did the right thing
In the Jackson case it seems that the jury did the right thing; in that it
appears that the members of it refused to convict Jackson precisely because the
case against him was not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' - not
because they thought that he was innocent.
And given that the notion that a man should be presumed innocent of a serious
offence unless proved otherwise - beyond reasonable doubt - is an
essential cornerstone of any decent system of
justice, the Jackson verdict will help to highlight this fact to the public
which has recently been only too willing to convict men of sexual offences on
evidence that is barely credible.
Indeed, thousands of men across the western world have been given horrendous
sentences during the past two decades on the basis of evidence which was totally
e.g. see Innocence Lost and Pressing Issue Of Justice
by Paul Craig Roberts.
they would rather convict an innocent man
And this is because many juries nowadays convict men
accused of 'abuse' not because they necessarily believe that they are guilty, but
because they would rather convict an innocent man than possibly allow an 'abuser' to go free.
This is an indication not only of just how
worthless are men nowadays deemed to be, it is also a testament to how corrupted
and debased has the western system of justice now become.
The horrible fate of all falsely accused men
- particularly if they are found guilty - is clearly considered by many
juries (and, indeed, by many judges) to be of little consequence.
And the fact that these men merely might
have been guilty of something is often seen as enough to convict them.
As such, it is indeed a victory for all men that the jury in the Jackson case demanded proof 'beyond reasonable
doubt' and refused to be swayed simply by the credibility of the
3. The notion that a man who sleeps with a child necessarily has sex on his mind is hokum - but the
hate-stirring feminists and their friends in the abuse industry have managed to distort most horribly the public's perceptions of such a thing.
As any normal woman will tell you; children were designed
to be hugged and cuddled. They were designed, by Nature, to elicit
caring and loving behaviours in the adults around them.
The lineages of children who were not designed this way did not make it down
the years. They were statistically washed away by those that were.
And adults who failed to respond appropriately to the children around them
experienced the same fate. Their descendants were statistically washed away and disappeared
into some kind of evolutionary abyss.
Of course, we know that some tiny percentage of adults and children
around us are not particularly normal in these respects but, on balance, the
vast majority of both men and women do not behave in a manner that is likely to
hurt children - on the contrary, they mostly do the exact opposite - and the
vast majority of children can also usually wheedle their way most happily around the
psychology of the adults that surround them.
What was 'strange', therefore, about Michael Jackson's behaviour with
children, in my view, is not that he seemed desperate to gain the affection of
children - something which millions of normal adults do every day - but that he was daft enough to believe that he would not get himself into trouble for the way in which he went about doing this.
The point that I am making here is not that I believe that Michael
Jackson was innocent of any sexual behaviours - he might well have been guilty
of them -
who knows? - the point is that it would not
surprise me in the least to discover that he was, in fact, completely innocent.
a large percentage of men who visit
prostitution houses do so for cuddles
Indeed, we know that a large percentage of men who visit
prostitution houses do so for cuddles, affection and talking, rather than for sex, and
we also know that the 'soft' paedophiles (the 'strokers' and the 'gropers', if you like) tend often
to be rather strange adults - in the sense that they seem quite unable to form close
relationships with other adults; particularly of the opposite gender. These
emotionally-starved beings in some cases turn to children for affection because,
presumably, children tend to be less aware of their various adult failings. And
in some of these cases, one thing leads to another.
In most cases, however, it does not.
And Michael Jackson is such a strange man from an adult point of view that I
doubt very much the he can relate particularly well to adults; and vice
On top of this, his enormous stature and (historic) wealth will surely have
put him through many situations during his lifetime wherein the motives of the
adults clustering around him were highly suspect.
As such, Michael Jackson is likely to be particularly wary of adults.
All in all, therefore, I would not be at all surprised to discover that
Michael Jackson was, in fact, completely innocent of what he was accused of doing, and nor
does it surprise me that a strange man like him would find the company of children particularly welcome.
However, regardless of the truth concerning this issue, the Michael
Jackson jury decided that when a man sleeps with a child and/or when he seems
particularly partial to the company of children, it does not necessarily follow
that there must be some underlying sexual motive.
This is the conclusion that the jury must have reached in order
to arrive at the verdict that it gave.
And it is heartening to see that this accurate conclusion has
finally resurfaced in the minds of ordinary members of the public when for so
many years it has been countered by the malicious antics of the feminists and many of
those working in the child abuse industry. These people have laboured
ceaselessly to poison the relationships between men and children, and one of
their main tactics has been to try to portray any man who demonstrates even the
slightest affection for children as being a paedophile of some sort.
And, of course, one of the many negative consequences of this rather
disgusting tactic has been that men very often have to
behave in a manner which reinforces the very notion that, at heart, they are
deeply uncaring toward children, and that the only reason why they might engage
in physical contact with them is because they have some underlying sexual
Here is just one example of this. It is an incident that I still remember
quite vividly even though it happened over twenty years ago.
A girl of about 9 in a school playground had fallen very badly having stumbled over a football
upon which she was attempting to
balance. She had whacked her forehead into the wall and her knees were very badly grazed from landing on them.
Needless to say she was crying her eyes out as she stumbled towards the teacher who had not seen the incident.
Her arms were stretched out towards the teacher as she approached him, clearly expecting to be held and possibly lifted to
some place where she might be attended to.
Did he lift her up? Did he envelop her in his arms to comfort her?
On the contrary. He actually pushed her gently away from himself, and led her slowly
and painfully across the playground and into the school, where, no doubt, he would have found some female teacher to stick some
healing plaster on to her various grazes.
He was not going to risk his entire career!
And who can blame him?
But the incident really sickened me.
It was yet another example of men being put into a position wherein they had to remain "cold and distant" from children
- even in circumstances that clearly warranted the very opposite - in order to safeguard themselves from false
allegations; allegations which commonly arise not from the children themselves
but from hysterical histrionic malicious witch-hunters who see 'abuse' just
about wherever they look.
But, of course, this is exactly how the feminists and many of those in the abuse
industry want men to be - cold and distant.
They want men to be forced
into having to be cold and distant towards children and to be
perceived as such; particularly by the children.
They do this in order to bolster
their malicious claims about men and in order to support their empire of male
And so, of course, this is exactly how children grow up to see men - as "cold and distant".
And then when the children become adults, nothing changes.
"Men are cold and distant".
"Men are cold and distant".
Well, of course they are.
cold and distant in order to protect themselves from those who would seek to
persecute them in some way on the basis of any small nuance that might arouse
It reminds me of what the Nazis did to the Jews when they stuck them in filthy
"Look at those dirty filthy Jews," they said. "Look at how unclean and how un-human they look."
They took films of them and showed the Germans how unclean they were.
But they were the ones who had put them in those conditions in the first place!
Well. This is the type of process that has been going on with regard to men and children
throughout western societies for some three decades. And it has been perpetrated
by large groups of people who have a vested interest in stirring up hatred
By forcing men to be cold and distant towards children they
have managed to bolster their claims that any close relationships that do happen
to arise between men and
children must always be suspect.
The result of the Michael Jackson trial, however, sends out the message that the
jury was not prepared to accept that men are necessarily cold and distant when
it comes to children and, further, that, on the contrary, they might well be the
4. The notion that children are necessarily damaged for
life solely by engaging in consensual sexual fondling is as risible as is the
notion that a man who has failed to withdraw from his long-term partner when she
has lost the mood is committing an act that is akin to murder - which is
what 'rape' is often nowadays deemed to be.
And the alleged lifelong
psychological damage that is said to occur as a result of such things is nothing
more than a malevolent myth that has been fuelled by the feminists and the abuse
industry for the usual reasons.
Indeed, given the horrible and dangerous world
in which our human ancestors have had to survive over the millennia, the idea
that evolution arranged matters so that cuddles and caresses give rise to some
kind of permanent psychological disability is utterly preposterous.
Indeed, a more
preposterous notion is difficult to imagine.
And millions of people know this
- but they are too scared to say so lest they be accused by the malicious
witch-hunters of 'defending
And if my memory is correct, Jackson stood to be sentenced to 20 years
in prison if he had been found guilty.
As such, there is a strong likelihood that those young men - the alleged
victims - who gave evidence
in support of Michael Jackson's innocence did so because they had no intention
of seeing someone whom they cared for being sent to prison for twenty years.
this, in fact, is what happens all too frequently in the area of child sexual
Most 'paedophiles' are not strangers to the children whom they abuse.
On the contrary, they are usually very intimately involved with them in some way
or other. And they are often relatives or 'boyfriends'.
And it is
for this reason that most children do not come forward to seek help when they
They do not want to see their abusers punished in such a
diabolical way for something that they might consider to be relatively trivial.
the same is true when it comes to matters of 'rape'.
After all, most 'rapes' -
and I use the word in its currently corrupted sense - are not carried out by
strangers, but by intimates.
But because the punishments are now so great,
women who have been 'raped' by intimates are hardly likely to report them.
because the punishments are now so great, those women who do report a rape by an
intimate must be positively rabid with hatred towards the men whom they have
And, of course, women in such a condition should rarely be believed
when they give their prosecutorial testimonies.
My general point, therefore, is this.
simply cannot be trusted in the witness box.
The barbaric sentences
currently being meted out for sexual offences almost guarantee that most
sexual offences will not be reported - because most 'victims' would not
want to see their intimates being hung, drawn and quartered over such
things - and those that do get reported are reported mostly by people who
are so imbued with hatred that they simply cannot be trusted in the
course, I am not suggesting that there are no situations wherein sexual offences
are not serious, and nor am I suggesting that some victims of sexual-assaults do
not have every justification for being imbued with hatred (e.g. a savage rape
with violence etc). However, most sex-assault allegations nowadays do not fall
into such categories. They are mostly concerned
with relatively trivial events between intimates. And so the effect of imposing
barbaric sentences for these more trivial incidents is merely to pervert the
entire justice system in the area of sex-assaults.
Loosely speaking, when
it comes to intimates - whether involving children or not - the justice
system is nowadays mostly attracting accusations only from those who are imbued
with hatred - or, perhaps, with greed.
And such accusers should not be
believed unless there is highly credible evidence to back their claims.
summary, the Jackson verdict is a victory for men, in my view, because it endorses the view that
1. ... both women and children do lie about sex assault.
2 ... the notion of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is an important part of a decent justice system - even when it comes to sex-assault.
3 ... men might quite legitimately seek intimate attachments to children that have nothing to do with sex.
4 ... those who wish to see barbaric sentences for trivial offences inflicted
upon those who were once their intimates have a credibility problem.
overblown hysteria over child sexual abuse has damaged all
And, while on the subject, it
is very important for readers to understand that the overblown hysteria over
child sexual abuse has damaged all our children - and our
societies - very significantly indeed.
Apart from the fact that most children
are less likely to report sexual abuse because of the barbaric way in which the
perpetrators - most likely their intimates - are going to be treated, there are
a host of other negative consequences that all our children have
to bear as a result of the malicious abuse propaganda that keeps being foisted
into the atmosphere by the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.
children who have actually been abused are going to suffer far more from the abuse than
they would ever have done otherwise; e.g. see Tea Abuse,
NSPCC - Children's Charities Sued for Millions?,
Do We Need An Abuse Industry?
our children are far less properly cared for; e.g. as per the example of the 9
year old girl above. Also see The Damage
To Society Caused by False Accusations.
Thirdly, the relationships between
men, women and children are perpetually being poisoned very deeply - with
horrendous results; e.g. see The NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped
so perhaps the Michael Jackson victory will one day be seen not only as a
victory for men, but as a victory for every decent human being on the planet and
a defeat for those wicked hate-mongers who seek to profit from the mountains of
misery that they purposely generate even over the most trivial of events.
whether or not Michael Jackson was actually guilty of sexual offences is neither
here nor there as far as the outcome of his trial being a victory for men is
What is important about this trial is that the jury did the right
It refused to convict Michael Jackson for sexual offences on the
grounds that the totality of the evidence presented to it left significant room
Vindictive Feminists A
surprising number of Americans still imagine that Jackson must have abused
somebody. This is precisely how we have been programmed to think by feminists
throughout the liberal media. David Usher
Child Abuse Hysteria The
event that dramatically revealed the ascendancy of the abuse obsession in
Britain (while also imposing some limits on it) was the Cleveland child sexual
abuse scandal of 1987. In the course of a few months, more than 120 children
were removed from their homes in this industrial town in the northeast and taken
into local authority care, following allegations that they had been sexually
abused, usually by their fathers. Dr Michael Fitzpatrick - 6 min
Innocent Men Were Prosecuted For Child Porn New
evidence suggests that Operation Ore, Britainís biggest child pornography
investigation, may have prosecuted innocent men on the basis of discredited
American police testimony and questionable forensic methods. - another
example of wicked corruption among police officers who will often seek to
destroy the lives of others merely in order to maintain their departmental
On Michael Jackson Iím
relieved that he wasnít convicted. Joe Sobran