Sunday, March 10, 2019

The Perks of Whiteness

Click for Artist's Description

Rasheed, Muhammad. "The Perks of Whiteness." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 11 Mar 2019. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

Anonymous - What are your thoughts about the Michael Jackson documentary 'Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me'?

Muhammad Rasheed - The documentary is only a part of a larger racist propaganda campaign that seeks to cover over the wrongs of powerful white men by social engineering a stupid and gullible populace into accepting the face of a deceased Black man as the official poster child of pedophilia.

The truth of the matter is that Michael Jackson was proven innocent usingwell-documented facts, but the people trying to smear him aren’t interested in the facts, nor is the general population—so used to feeding their psyche with manufactured “reality” drama and scandalous gossip mongering—interested in whether MJ was truly innocent. Shamefully, they would rather believe the lies and remain willful puppets of the grifter class.

David Wison - Very interesting point on this subject and I do agree with your comment.

Lisa Stewart - I feel those young men are telling the truth that they never could have, or would have while he (MJ) was alive. They were under his spell.

They are just beginning to realize what damage was done to their young selves, and why they have always had emotional problems.

The worst thing of all was the realization how horribly the parents let these kids down, they were complicit in the abuse. What parent allows their 7 year old to sleep with and have an inappropriately intertwined relationship with a grown man? There is no need or reason for that.

Whatever good MJ did in his life has nothing to do with the inappropriate relationships he had with children. The worst criminals and pedophiles are certainly nice to someone in their lives at one point or another. Which has nothing to do with the abuse that is the other facet of their lives.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Lisa... Was Michael Jackson Guilty | Dru Story News

One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History | Charles Thomson

Lisa Stewart - I don’t understand why you posted the article above with no comment but having read it I will say this. Was there chaos and confusion in all aspects of Jackson’s life up to and including this trial— absolutely.

Let’s say he, MJ, was 100% innocent. After all this a sane person would get every one of those children, along with their greedy parents out of your home. Let them ‘play’ at Nevetland —the park— not in your house. Let them sleep in their own homes. If you want to ‘help’ them send them a check, pay off a bill, point them to a doctor or agency. ‘Sleep in my house’ therapy isn’t going to help anyone.

Someone needed to get this man mental help. Not pray my demons away help from some church’s pastor. Though that has its place. But I mean real, long term psychological help. That was a broken man, talented yes, but a product of second generation dysfunction. The trial was just another circus.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, MJ was perhaps over-eccentric and quirky, but he was no pedophile. The trial proved that a handful of grifter families targeted him as part of a long string of celebrity marks, that's why he decided to fight to the end, and why he was found innocent. The prosecution was sloppy and greedy.

Lisa Stewart - Curious, do you have children of your own? If you do would you feel comfortable allowing them to spend the night in that man’s home. I do have children and there is no way they would ever sleep in that man’s home. He had nothing I need that I can’t experience after having slept safely in my own home or a hotel. I asked about your own children because that is a different judgement call all together. If I asked you— you as a child— if you’d like to stay at neverland you’d probably say yes and off you’d go. But as a parent (most anyway, obviously not those parents) your one job is to keep that baby safe. If you feel that uneasiness in the pit of your stomach you don’t allow certain things to happen.

Yes, these families were greedy and yes, they basically sold their children into whatever was happening in that house.

But that is not the child’s fault. I do believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But he was their cash cow that wasn’t going to produce if he went to jail.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll pass on your question since we each hold 180⁰ different views on whether MJ was a pedophile or not. It makes your question moot from my perspective.

Out of curiosity, what are you using as your metric to determine that MJ was a pedophile? I ask because you seem to have casually dismissed the trial record facts in favor of accepting the dubious word of professional grifters who admitted under oath they lied about their molestation claims.

Lisa Stewart - I wasn’t asking to get personal, I promise you. Once you have your own children, and you see their innocence and recognize your duty to protect them you have a different perspective. I have never had a MJ believer express normal parental concerns when it comes to him.

1— No child NEEDED to sleep over at that house. Nevermind in his room or in his bed. It just isn’t necessary. If he is 100% innocent this is true, if he is 100% guilty this is still true.

2— If you’re letting your child stay to further his music career then we are back to number one. Because rehearsal isn’t happening in his room, behind locked doors, in his bed.

Because someone’s parent is a grifter, or an addict, or part of a dysfunctional family just leaves the child more vulnerable to grooming. Those types of parents often do not adequately protect their children. You seem to be focused on the sins of the parents, the media, the lawyers and the circus like trial. My focus is the children.

Something happened to those children, now adults. From personal experience with something different, you do not understand it as a child. But it all hits home— children protecting people who hurt them, parents not protecting children, innocent vulnerability— when you have your own children. That man was having too many over the top, intertwined relationships with children. You can speculate on why, or what the parents, lawyers, media had to do with that. Also he didn’t seem to have normal relationships with women (or men, because that would be fine too) the important thing for me would be relationships with consenting adults. Fax with them, fawn over them, talk with them for hours on the phone, live with them, give them gifts, sleep with them— an ADULT. It is not okay on any level with kids.

Muhammad Rasheed - Lisa wrote: “If you do would you feel comfortable allowing them to spend the night in that man’s home.”

You’re asking me to imagine myself and my family as invited members into Michael Jackson’s inner circle… the people who got to hang out with him at his home, and partake in the delightful toys he used his vast wealth to build within his magic-like safe space for his friends to enjoy.

Based on the well-documented FACTS that you’ve curiously casually dismissed out of hand, the heartbreaking testimony from MJ’s dearest friends who…tears in their eyes… one-by-one confirmed that the King of Rock, Pop & Soul was not a pedophile and had never once behaved inappropriately towards any of them. So within your hypothetical scenario in which my family were also dear friends of Michael Jackson, I would have zero reason to be concerned with his innocent attentions and the corny-ass pranks he was actually known for.

The danger came from his inability to read the predatory filthy hearts of those grifter families he allowed into his safe space. It is THAT situation that would prevent me from allowing my child to stay in his home without me. I don’t know them, nor trust them, and for obviously good reason. My powers of discernment are stronger than that of the naive owner of the estate and I would have to keep an eye on mine.

Lisa Stewart - It wasn’t a safe space clearly. With lawsuits, thefts, grifters (as you say)with filthy hearts, hangers on etc. You still haven’t given me any reason why people HAD to sleep in his house. Why he HAD to entertain young children in the private areas of his home.

Play at Neverland park and then go home. No kids sleeping over without their parents. No kids hanging out, door closed and locked, in a grown mans’s bedroom.

You’re telling me he had poor judgement. That I believe. If he didn’t have the sense enough to clear out those little boys and their families before the ‘grifters’ (as you say) landed him in court. There is no way he would continue the same ill advised behavior with regard to the boys and their families afterwards. Right?

You’re telling me he NEEDED that ‘fun’? Why? For what purpose? For corny jokes?

Grown men need to have adult relationships— gender doesn’t matter. An adult craving inappropriate 7 year old company is creepy and I believe you would realize that were it not for that name Jackson. That name puts stars in people’s eyes but honestly he was just a talented man who needed to keep his bedroom private and desperately needed mental help that he didn’t get.

Muhammad Rasheed - Lisa wrote: "You still haven’t given me any reason why people HAD to sleep in his house."

I ignored it because who said anyone did HAVE to sleep in his home? Your insistence on that point you made up functions only as a strawman effigy. Remember that in the scenario you presented, my family are invited guests in the home of a dear friend… like Chris Tucker, Macaulay Culkin and Alfonso Ribeiro were. That’s all. We’re not prisoners. Like them, I also expect to have nothing but glowing praise for the host, while finding myself with them on the stand testifying to MJ’s goodly character and bearing witness that all of the Neverland problems came from the low-life grifter families that targeted MJ as a super mark.

Lisa wrote: “No kids hanging out, door closed and locked, in a grown mans’s bedroom.”

The over-the-top comical extra-ness you are projecting into the scenario in order to sell the creepiness angle you are committed to doesn’t represent truth, Lisa.

Lisa wrote: “There is no way he would continue the same ill advised behavior with regard to the boys and their families afterwards.”

Are you trying to say that because he wasn’t able to read into the predatory motives of the criminal families he allowed access to his home, that it somehow meant that he was a predator himself? That’s not how that works. The criminal class recognizes the criminal class. The “Game recognizes game” cliche is practically a street-wise ‘proverb’ just for that reason.

Lisa wrote: “You’re telling me he NEEDED that ‘fun’?”

No, that’s more of your strawman effigy logical fallacy. People have fun in their homes if they happen to be the fun-loving type. It’s the comfort of their HOME where people do have fun. Leave it to the anti-MJ crowd to somehow make that too out to be a mental illness or a crime.

Lisa wrote: “An adult craving inappropriate 7 year old company is creepy…”

The “craving” part is another one of your over-the-top projections in order to paint the picture you want to make. I don’t agree with your viewpoint on this topic.

Lisa wrote: “…and I believe you would realize that were it not for that name Jackson.”

I grew up as the oldest of nine siblings, and have always had a “big brother” aspect to my persona. In the Rasheed sheltered household, that wasn’t too much different from what the Jackson’s experienced, there was no incestuous “kissing cousins” or humping on each other type activities that I came to learn as an adult was quite normal in many other households. In my late teens and ‘20s, I still had the “big brother” attitude about kids once I started interacting in life outside of the family, and when [what I came to later consider] irresponsible parents would leave their kids near me even though they didn’t really know me, I stepped up and automatically went into the baby sitter role I always accepted as normal. I never abused anyone’s children, Lisa, nor would it have ever occurred to me to do so. I also had a “Peter Pan” perpetual child-like persona on me for a long time. I was in my early 30s when I ran into the woman who would become my wife and she strongly advised me at the time to stop being so free (“familiar” as she put it) with other peoples’ (strangers) kids. At first I was GENUINELY HURT at the idea someone would think that I—“ME?!?”—would abuse any children. “Big brothers don’t do that!” She assured me that it wasn’t about me, but about other people… the grifter class… who could take advantage of me the same way Michael Jackson was taken advantage of for the exact same thing. I came around to her way of thinking about it eventually, and now that I’m almost 50 yrs old, I REALLY get it. People are savage.

I understood Michael Jackson at every step of the way. You hold no insight into this specialized narrow topic, because MJ wasn’t the guy you and others like you are projecting him to be. Your proud rejection of the documented facts in the case reveal you to be the monster that you’re trying to make MJ into, as you’ve proven to love manufactured falsehood more than truth, and it is ugly to behold.

I ask you to please look at this exceptional thing from a fresh new pair of eyes, a different way of seeing outside of whatever horrors you may have witnessed or heard of from the true criminal class. Everyone isn’t like that, and there are people in the world who actually are the good guys.

Lisa Stewart - I’ll respond to the rest later. But thank GOD for your wife. That is exactly what I am talking about. I respect that you had zero bad intentions, but it’s up to adults to teach children healthy boundaries for their own safety. Though we may feel 10 years old inside it is mandatory that we behave like adults.

Had MJ maintained healthy adult boundaries it would have been much harder for such accusations to be leveled against him. He also clearly didn’t have healthy adult relationships like you had with your wife to ease him into changing his behavior.

For that very reason I do not ‘friend’ any of my students on social media until they are adults. That way nothing— and I do mean nothing— can be misunderstood. I have had some vindictive parents who start foolishness because they have been asked to leave due to nonpayment. Why would I play into some disgruntled persons hands? That’s common sense not comic-extraness or a sensational scenario.

Muhammad Rasheed - Lisa wrote: "But thank GOD for your wife."
I know, right?

Lisa wrote: "That’s common sense not comic-extraness or a sensational scenario."

The extra-ness was your continuous attempts to paint MJ out to be a pedophile in all of your what-if? hypotheticals.

Lisa Stewart - I am not painting him— he painted himself that way.

I’m not taking responsibility for that.

These are his words— out of his own mouth, not colored by the media.

Do you still think it’s accetable to share your bed with children?

Of course. Of course.

Why can’t you share you’re bed?

The most loving thing you can do is share your bed with someone.

And I didn’t sleep on the bed with the child. I slept on the floor. Even if I did it’s okay.

So you still think it’s acceptable?

Of course. Why not?

He says if he’s a pedophile or Jack the Ripper it’s not okay. That shows how warped he was.

It is not okay for a grown man— pop star or priest or happy go lucky friend— to be sleeping with a child. Not okay. Not acceptable. Not justifiable.

I didn’t paint this funky picture— he did.

Muhammad Rasheed - So in your own post here, you admit that Michael Jackson said that he DIDN'T sleep in the bed with the kids, that he believes it ISN'T okay for a "pedophile or Jack the Ripper" to sleep with kids, yet you still painted a picture as if MJ himself was sleeping in the bed with kids in a locked room as a pedophile...

...while claiming MJ said it himself and you were only just repeating it. And you're still doubling-down on this POV. This is BAD, Lisa. >:(

Lisa Stewart - As I said— it’s not okay for ANY man, saying a pedophile or Jack the Ripper is just a distraction. His words were clear— it’s okay.

This brother’s boundaries were self admittedly warped.

So is it okay that that loving Mr. Jones down the block sleeps with our kids or just Michael Jackson? And seriously, isn’t every jail full of people who say they didn’t do the crime they are accused of? I am listening to his lack of adult boundaries.

You’re hearing MJ say— it’s not okay for a pedophile to sleep in bed with a child.

I’m hearing him say— sleeping in bed with a child is okay as long as you’re not a pedophile or Jack the Ripper.


No, you shouldn’t be sleeping on the floor with a 7 year old in your bed. He thought that quote remedied everything?


For the life of me I know you would understand this if it weren’t Michael Jackson.

Muhammad Rasheed - So far, you are stepping over clearly explained positions to force your “MJ is a creep” narrative. Your over-the-top biases throughout this thread render your final line meaningless.

Lisa Stewart - Never mind Michael Jackson then.

Is it ok for grown men to ‘share their bed’ with little boys?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your chosen logical fallacy is: "MOVING THE GOALPOST!"

lol You are a trip. Stop slandering Michael Jackson, please. >:(

See Also:

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

That Old Skin-Deep Critique

The Annual Tabloid Bamboozle

[REVIEW] Dave Chappelle's Sticks & Stones

The Perks of Whiteness

SUBSCRIBE and receive a FREE! Weapon of the People eBook by M. Rasheed!

No comments:

Post a Comment