It's always "Opposite Day" when it comes to the media.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Rolling Stone, of all places, had an article with compelling evidence that the first allegation against him was incredibly and absurdly false.
They showed the exact trail of how the entire affair was concocted, and why. What’s interesting about it is, I had always assumed he was guilty because he looked like a weirdo to me. Then I read the article, many years after the fact I found it in an archive somewhere. And I realized if the first accusation was false, what kind of coincidence is that then, that he actually had done that, but only to other kids.
Then I saw many people who spent many years with him putting their reputations on the line to defend him. Good people, bad people, people in between. Defending him. People who were shouted down by the same media that we know is full of shit. People who could have profited off of claiming they had been abused and selling their story, but defended him instead.
Then years later we find out that he had a very unhealthy relationship with the media because he saw them as a bunch of grifters and liars.
There is pretty compelling evidence that he had a problem with a certain group of people who do happen to, pretty much, run that same media.
It’s interesting to me that the people who’ve looked into Michael’s situation the most generally come away with the idea that perhaps he didn’t do these things. That he was just a big child himself, from years of abuse and neglect, and then what he could have seen simply as an innocent sleepover was twisted in mutated into something else by people who wanted to harm him, profit from him, etc.
It’s also interesting to me that as soon as grassroots momentum shows that people are waking up to the idea that he may have been innocent after all, then comes a documentary out of nowhere about his guilt.
Interesting.
You know your second paragraph where you say that you had always assumed he was guilty because he looked like a weirdo got me thinking. I and basically everybody else I knew thought along these same lines, he looks like a weirdo it must be true he does bad things. So what if the entire intention behind labeling him a pedophile was to create a sort of narrative that this is what a rich a pedophile looks like: some wack job weirdo that went from black to white skin, has a weird nose, and also has a literal theme park at their house. Well of course now we know that the real rich pedophile looks much more like a clean cut slick talking politician than somebody most considered a bit nutty to begin with. Who knows but if it is true that he wasn't actually a bad guy, then clearly there must be another reason.
I think the reason for the sudden pushback to say he's guilty is that the media desperately is trying to keep their ability to control the narrative. To do that they need to retain their credibility (no matter how weak we might see their credibility, it is simply a fact that your average normie doesnt question it), and if Michael Jackson not being a pedophile starts to gain traction and people begin to accept it as true it completely undermines the media's credibility because they were so blatantly 100% in on him being a bad guy. I think that's why you see them stupidly double down like this, they have lied so much and for so long they have no other choice: do nothing and hope nothing comes from it, admit to the lies, or lie some more and hope nobody notices. Obviously they always choose lie some more.