Carl Toms´ book - a new stage of hatred towards Michael Jackson!

  by Helena on

Okay, guys – so after the 15 years of bullying Michael Jackson and trashing his name in every possible way the devious onslaught against him has now entered a new stage – that of gentle lies masquerading as the truth and soothing reassurances meant to convince the general public of the author’s ‘unbiased attitude’ and ‘very best intentions’.

What am I talking about? I am talking about the 624-page book by a Carl Toms to come out soon which is being advertised as an all-inclusive research into Michael’s ‘real’ relationship with boys.

This new ‘scientific’ and seemingly objective approach may turn out very effective for Michael’s haters and their audience. The general public is really fed up with all those blatant lies about Jackson and thinks that some justice should be done to the man at last – so it is time for all the negativity to be fed into the people’s minds in a soft and ‘unbiased’ way without them ever noticing that they are swallowing the same old LIE.

How do they do that? Nothing can be easier – just look at the editorial review from announcing the book to be released on June 7, 2010 (scheduled to mark the 1st anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death this way?). See how well in advance the preparation works starts and how gracefully the same old lies are being worded now – here is the review sentence by sentence with the implications to be swallowed (given in the brackets):

“Not just another book about ‘Wacko Jacko’” (so much respect for Michael Jackson!)

“This vivid and insightful commentary is a joy to read” (isn’t it enjoyable to slander the deceased man in a witty and hilarious way?)

“A must-read for those who believe he truly loved children but are not so sure about his innocence…” (see what happens to your beliefs after you read it…)

“Michael Jackson spent the wedding night of his second marriage not with his bride but with his best man an eight-year-old boy”. (hideous to say the least…)

In fact the wedding took place on November 15, 1996 just several hours before Michael’s departure for his tour in Australia. He left the US after the plain civil wedding ceremony at a presidential suite of the Sheraton hotel. Debbie Rowe was 6 months pregnant at the time. Just compare this news with “the wedding night with a boy” and you might see a little difference between the two ways of presenting facts.

“His first marriage ended in divorce after he had been on holiday with two young boys without his wife.” (So the marriage ended as soon as Lisa-Maria Presley learned of his ‘relationship’ with boys!!!).

The actual events preceding the divorce were as follows:

December 6, 1995: Michael collapsed while rehearsing the concert and was rushed to the Beth Israel Medical Center . He was found suffering from gastro-enteritis, dehydration and electrolyte imbalances. JRandy Toraborelli: As soon as he was checked into the hospital, Michael’s press people telephoned Lisa in Los Angeles and, with frantic explanations, begged her to fly to her husband’s side. “Hell, no” was her response. “Screw him. I’m not going. Why should I?” December 10, 1995: Lisa Marie finally visited him and asked for a divorce. Officially the divorce was filed on January 18, 1996.

Here is Lisa-Maria’s own version of the same: “He was in the hospital, and I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with him. I started asking questions, and it was always a different story. He said I was “causing trouble” and “stirring up problems.” He told me, “you’re making my heart rate go up,” and asked me to go home, and I said, “Good. I want out.”

As regards the ‘boys’ issue Lisa-Maria told PLAYBOY in June 2003 that she had never seen any inappropriate behavior on Michael’s part:

- Did you and he ever have children join you in your bed?

- Never. Never, never, never, never. I never saw him sleep in bed with a child, ever.

- Did you ever see him with photos of nude children?

- Never. Never.

- Do you have any reason to think he’s a child molester?

- If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy. I’ve never seen him behave inappropriately. He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies. He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.

But we have to go on:

“To kneejerk loyalists, the King of Pop’s love of children was innocent: end of story. For the more reflective among us, whether we are intrigued, baffled, appalled, empathic, or even all these things, Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons provides the definitive review of his numerous special friendships’” (Kneejerk MJ fans are the zombies not worth talking about, while you and I are really intelligent people, so swallow what we are telling you without thinking twice as our review is completely ‘defininitive’).

Defaming Michael Jackson’s supporters as kneejerk loyalists? Boosting the confidence and self-esteem of Michael’s haters by saying that they are the only ones who are capable of thinking? A truly divide-and-rule principle targeted at each segment of the public in a very sophisticated way…

“Armed with insights from a range of disciplines psychology, sociology, moral philosophy Carl Toms spent many years researching the megastar’s boy-love’” (what a thorough all-inclusive scientific and moral study it is!).

You bet it is.

“He delves deeply into the sources of Michael’s enigmatic identity, soul and genius while keeping a sceptical eye on the assumptions and values of the King’s detractors.” (see how objective our study is – we go as far as calling Michael genius and are even sceptical about his detractors!).

A half-truth here and a half-lie there do not amount to the real truth.

“Toms’ is the only book to examine thoroughly Michael’s trial on child abuse charges without losing sight of the increasingly well documented but surprisingly little known or understood facts about earlier allegations.” (we’ve lulled your attention well enough to allege that the 2005 trial overlooked all those documents…).

The real truth about the matter is that the man who was Michael Jackson’s life-long prosecutor fortunately proved himself his dedicated hater too – therefore we cannot suspect Tom Sneddon of leaving any stone unturned or any speck of dust under Michael’s shoes non-examined with a magnifying glass. This alone makes the above statement a complete LIE – all the evidence from earlier cases was brought into the 2005 trial thanks to Tom Sneddon’s efforts and scrutinized there as if under a microscope. And this means that the non-guilty verdict of the year 2005 automatically acquits Michael Jackson of all earlier accusations as well.

“It exposes the falsity of persistent efforts to whitewash the record by inventing for Michael a phoney normal’, or plain vanilla gay’, sexuality.”

No, it is your phoney editorial review exposes the never-ending desire of some people to smear the man who by all human laws of decency and ethics should be left alone at last…

“The author probes Michael’s intense identification with Peter Pan, the eternal boy, acknowledging the profound significance of this attachment but discarding the welter of dated Freudian psychobabble it has spawned.” (Look at the quintessence of our objectivity!).

It is good you’re discarding the Freudian sex-based-only-theory as it would be complete nonsense to apply it to Michael Jackson’s beautiful inner world and deep spirituality, but I suggest you research the ‘eternal boy’ phenomenon in a much wider context including similar examples from other authors and musicians – like, for example, the beautiful “Forever young” hit (just my opinion).

“Refusing to settle for the easy cliches about Michael’s lost childhood’, Toms examines groundbreaking research into intimate man-boy contacts in order to illuminate the real nature of Michael’s dangerous liaisons’ and the surprising challenge they present to our moral certainties”.

So this is the root of the matter? You are defending your moral certainties? And who said you had them?

P.S. Now that I am told this Carl Toms is a convicted pedophile I am ashamed that I ever gave him the benefit of the doubt. This post has been returned now to its original variant.

Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!