Harry

Especially For Young Women

 
   

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 for men.

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 concerning 'abuse'.

 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 INcredible; 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 accusations.

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 versa. 

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 motive.

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? 

No. 

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 hatred.

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.

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 their wrath.

It reminds me of what the Nazis did to the Jews when they stuck them in filthy impoverished ghettoes. 

"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 towards men. 

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 complete opposite.

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 paedophiles'.

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.

And this, in fact, is what happens all too frequently in the area of child sexual abuse.

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 are abused.

They do not want to see their abusers punished in such a diabolical way for something that they might consider to be relatively trivial.

And 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.

Indeed, 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 accused.

And, of course, women in such a condition should rarely be believed when they give their prosecutorial testimonies. 

My general point, therefore, is this.

 they 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 witness box.

Of 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.

In 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.

 the overblown hysteria over child sexual abuse has damaged all our children

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.

Firstly, 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?

Secondly, 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

And 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.

Finally, 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 concerned.

What is important about this trial is that the jury did the right thing.

It refused to convict Michael Jackson for sexual offences on the grounds that the totality of the evidence presented to it left significant room for doubt.


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 empires.

On Michael Jackson Iím relieved that he wasnít convicted. Joe Sobran

'I lost my job because I was a man playing with children' 

Philip Bennison, 55, from Cambridge, has been married for 33 years to Jane and has six children and eight grandchildren. He ran a printing business for 20 years, did youth work for 25 years and completed nine courses in caring for children. Here he tells Gill Swain why he believes men are right to avoid working with children 

Sunday June 19, 2005
The Observer 

I find Ruth Kelly's plans to open hundreds of after-school clubs and the government's pleas for more men to work in them a complete joke. What happened to me when I was a playleader demonstrates why men steer clear of these jobs and why they are right to do so. 

There could have been few men better qualified for the part-time job I took at an after-school club for four-to-11-year-olds. I was always a very active father and, when mine grew up, I missed that involvement. 

I adored the job, but the restrictions imposed on me became unbearable. I have never been accused of abusing a child, but I was judged to be "too tactile". I lost my job, in effect, for being a man playing with children. 

I started in September 2002 and the first year was wonderful. I taught skipping, roller-skating, balancing along the tops of walls and playing the electric organ. Parents appreciated the presence of a male playleader because children relate to you differently. 

I learnt in training about "inappropriate touching", being told that piggybacks were all right, but men shouldn't take children on their laps. Children would want to climb on my knee but I'd immediately stand up and push them away. 

Last spring the committee told me I was "getting too close" to some of the children. They said I must stop holding children around the waist and only take their hands. It wasn't easy teaching children to skate that way and it was unpleasant to feel I was being watched and under suspicion. 

One day a girl of nine ran up crying, saying she had been bullied by two boys. She leant her head on my chest and I put a comforting arm around her. For that I was given a written warning. Apparently, when she put her head on my chest it was "child-led touching", which was acceptable, but when I responded it was "adult-led touching", which was not. I was told that if it happened again I should fetch a female playworker. 

Piggybacks were banned. I was not allowed to tickle children, pick them up or swing them around, no matter how much they pleaded. When I pointed out that women colleagues often sat with children on their laps, I was told it was a fact of life that males were seen as more of a risk to children. 

I felt I was being victimised for being a man. I didn't think it inappropriate to hold children around the waist, but I agreed to adopt a "no touch" policy and withdrew from the children to concentrate on office work. 

One day last June, I was suspended. Someone had allegedly overheard two children talking about me and had made a report to the police. I have never been told who it was, who the children were, or what they said. 

The police never contacted me and when I rang them after six weeks they said they had no record of any investigation. It's impossible to defend yourself when you don't know what the charge is or who is accusing you. 

But the fact a report was said to have been made led Ofsted to tell the committee to ensure I was always supervised when I returned to work last September. 

I was asked to resign but refused. They produced a document citing "causes for dismissal", containing statements from eight people relating to incidents which they said supported their case. 

Some of them were true, such as when I cheered up a girl of five who was miserable on her first day by holding her hands and helping her jump. One statement said the girl's skirt was flying up, "clearly displaying her underwear". The mother had given me a "look", but I didn't stop. 

I was devastated and wanted to fight, but my union told me it was impossible to prove a negative. Very reluctantly, I agreed to resign with compensation of £1,390 and was given a reference which said I had "difficulty in complying with the club's child-protection policy". 

I feel very angry and stigmatised, but also helpless because a man in this situation gets no support. 

In training I was often the only man among 20 women, but now there is one more man lost to childcare because I will never work with children again. You don't have to do anything wrong or be near children. Being a man in that job makes you vulnerable.
According to the NSPCC 2000 Survey Of Young Adults ... "Less than three in a thousand of the young people reported sexual behaviour against their wishes with professionals working with children."

As such, bearing in mind that that the number of professionals that one thousand children must encounter from, say, age 5 to age 16 must be enormous - teachers of all sorts, tutors, trainers, social services, care workers, doctors, dentists, priests, police officers, and so on - surely the fact that less than 3 in 1000 of them encounter anything untoward during some ten long years of existence suggests that our child professionals in the UK are really quite safe to be around.

Don't touch those kids! New research reveals why teachers and childcare workers now avoid putting a plaster on a child's leg - even though they know the rules are ridiculous. Josie Appleton
Also see

How To Profit From Abuse

 

 



List of Articles


rss
AH's RSS Feed

 

Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...

"I cannot thank you enough."

"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."

"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."

"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."

"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."

"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."

"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."

"It is terrific to happen upon your website."

"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."

"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."

"You are worth your weight in gold."

"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."

"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"

"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."

"I have been reading your site for a while now Ė and it is the best thing ever."

"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."

web tracker

 

Share


On YouTube ...

Who Rules Over Us?

Part 1 On Free Will

Part 2 On Super-Organisms

Part 3 On Power

Part 4 On Reality


 

Popular articles ...

... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?

... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.

... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?

...  Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable -  especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."

... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.


rss
AH's RSS Feed

Front Page
(click)