The Dark Spirits That Followed Diana Ross & Michael Jackson..

The Dark Spirits That Followed Diana Ross & Michael Jackson.. - YouTube

Transcripts:
Every time I create a a positive thought in my mind also I create a negative thought. It's just like I'm going to be very successful and my mind says oh no you're not you know. Okay. So since I create positive and negative it's which one I give the most attention that is powerful. When I think positive constantly it's very powerful and it controls me.
 If I think negative all the time it's going to control me too. So right now my positive thought is there is no going to be no disaster to destroy what I have planned for me and my family. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Hey, what is going on with y'all, man? It is Black Balloon and I'm coming back with another video, man.
 So, y'all already know what's going on. All right, y'all. By the title of this video, you already know what we here to talk about. Something, you know, a little bit different with Michael Jackson because I've never really talked about him and Diana Ross. And the rumor around the industry for a long time is that Diana Ross groomed Michael Jackson.
I think she was 14 or 15 years his senior. There's even a clip where it was a little awkward where, you know, she called him sexy in some kind of interview. And then of course he felt, you know, obligated to return the favor. Now, in my opinion, my humble opinion, Diana Ross wasn't the best looking woman, you know, out there or in the industry at that time.
 I think she's in her 80s now. But if y'all remember when we did the Chris Tucker video, I had this picture in that video. Now, obviously that's Diana Ross and some other people who are blurred out. Maybe these two bottom black squares. I don't know what that even is. Remember, I didn't think these pictures were real at one point.
 Michael Jackson just seemed placed right here and his vibe is completely off. And what even sparked this video as I was on the Art of Dialogue channel and I was just looking at what um Dr. Umar was talking about with Michael Jackson is Art of Dialogue. He interviewed Dr. Umar about things that's been going on lately. And he asked him a question about Michael Jackson.
 And the reason he asked the question, obviously, Michael Jackson name popped back up with the whole Epstein foul thing. And they have a movie coming out, I think spring of next year with, I think his nephew, right, is going to be playing Michael. And the movie is basically self-titled without the last name, just Michael, right? So, Dr.
 Umar gave his opinions about him and you know how he believed he was killed by the industry, you know, stuff we've talked about a bunch of different times. I could throw a little short piece of that interview in this video as well. >> He wasn't just a musical genius. Michael Jackson mastered all aspects of the music industry.
 Remember when Eminem dissed him and he bought Eminem's catalog? Michael Jackson bought Eminem's catalog where he dissed the Mike was gangster and Mike was murdered because when Michael Jackson purchased the Beatles catalog that automatically made him 50% owner of Sony Records art. Sony Records never forgave Michael Jackson for buying the Beatles catalog.
They wanted the Beatles catalog back. So what did they do? They sabotaged Michael Jackson's last album, Invincible, which automatically put Michael Jackson into debt. They wanted Michael Jackson to satisfy his debt by giving up the Beatles catalog. And Michael said, "No, I'mma go on tour.
 Everybody wants to see me again. I'mma go on tour, make this money, pay all off." And Michael Jackson made a mistake. He came back to LA to practice at the Staple Center where another assassinated black celebrity, Kobe Bryant, used to play. and they murdered Michael Jackson. >> It reminded me that Diana Ross was in this photo, right? So, I found another clip where a creator on TikTok broke down their relationship very well and then I just got in the rabbit hole of Diana Ross and Artha Franklin and all the people Diana Ross is like screwed
over and literally screwed to get to the top, right? A lot of people call her a witch. A lot of people say that death follows her. Um, that she groomed Michael Jackson. She did whatever she could to get her and her family to the top. Y'all know, uh, Tracy Ellis Ross, uh, the the youngest son that played in the movie ATL.
 Hell, even people think he Michael Jackson's son. I mean, there's a lot of different theories out there that involve Michael Jackson and Diana Ross and obviously Dirty Diana being, you know, who he was really talking about was Diana Ross. Now, just rumored, not actually, you know, proven to be fact, but that's why we're here to do this video.
 Definitely want to get y'all opinion on this whole Michael Jackson being groomed by Diana Ross thing, right? So, with that being said, let's jump into this clip that I thought was very good at broke down their relationship about Michael and Diana Ross. Check this out, y'all. There was some strange [ __ ] going on between Diana Ross and Michael Jackson. I mean, reallystrange.
 The kind of strange that made me question what did Mike really mean when he called Diana dirty? And if you think I'm implying what I'm not explicitly stating, you're right. And today I wanted to bring it to your attention if you haven't already heard about this [ __ ] Now mind you, this is a woman who met Michael Jackson when he was just 9 years old and she would have been 23 at the time.
 So what their relationship eventually grew to be is just strange. But because she's Diana Ross and he's Michael Jackson, this just completely flew right under the radar. Now, we all know double standards exist, but let's just keep it a se. Y'all know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Michael who was 14 years her senior and knew her since she was a 9-year-old little girl, y'all would have had a fit.
 And nobody would have a hard time labeling him a groomer. >> Like him. You know, Michael and I, we're in love and there's nothing to do about her. There's nothing to say. So, um, >> now over the years, people speculated that because Diana Ross was the woman that took Michael Jackson's virginity, this is why he developed an obsession for her.
 Whether it was in his music or in his books or in his interviews, it was clear that Michael Jackson just couldn't get enough of Diana Ross. And to be fair, she faed over him in her interviews as well. But because she was an older woman, she wasn't as careless and forthcoming about their relationship as Michael had been. So while Mike is going Diana, Diana, Diana in all his interviews, because she's older, she knows how to keep some level of decorum and mystery with regards to their relationship.
 Like this interview, she talked about it, she addressed it, but there was still some level of ambiguity. I mean, this interview could have easily been chocked up to her being facicious when she said she was in love with a boy that she met when he was nine. A little boy who she took in and became a surrogate mother to.
 But [ __ ] that for right now. We'll get into this more in another part. Diana Ross got married to some Norwegian businessman in 1986, and Michael Jackson hated it. He was rumored to have been deeply jealous. As far as he was concerned, Diana was always going to be the lady in his life. That is until Mike got closer to Elizabeth Taylor in the mid to late 80s.
 [ __ ] he even bailed on a dinner date with Diana Ross just to be with Elizabeth Taylor. Diana hit him up, Elizabeth hit him up, and Mike tried to be funny and combine the two dates, but Diana wasn't having this [ __ ] So, here we are. It's 1986 at the Video Music Awards, and Diana Ross and Sydney Portier present Michael Jackson with an award.
 Now, I want you all to pay attention to how Michael Jackson looks at Diana Ross and Lo Richie when Diana Ross goes to embrace Lion Richie. >> Now, of course, the pettiness didn't end there. This is a this a very deep story y'all because now when we talk about the grooming of Michael Jackson from Diana Roths, she was probably 24, 25 when she met Michael Jackson at 10 years old, right? Michael Jackson called her best friend, motherike figure, and also his girlfriend.
 And he said she was all of that to him in one. He even had a shrine in his house of Diana Ross. So, I'mma play y'all a short clip that shows the picture from another creator on Tik Tok that talked about it. >> Okay, I love Michael Jackson. I do, always will, always have. However, I have to admit, you know, during my search about him and Diana Ross, it showed me that Michael was a little cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
 And let's talk about it. So, in 1988, Michael Jackson bought a home and he named it Neverland. You know, his famous home, Neverland. And here we have here is the room inside of his home. And this room is dedicated to Diana Ross. It is a shrine room. Um Pepsi officials, they did a tour of his home.
 And they said that they that he had pictures filled with Diana all over the walls, like every angle. They said that there were hundreds of candles sitting on shelves, um tables, on the floors, you know, like it was candles everywhere. And guess how long he kept the candles lit? 247. Baby, that's witchcraft. And see, his brothers have always said that he have an obsession with Diana Ross.
 They can say it the nicest way they want to, but they have always said that he have an obsession with Diana Ross. And see this obsession and this praise for this woman, a shrine room. It just shows you the effects of him being groomed by her. He said she was like a mother to him, a sister to him, and a romantic lover.
I've never heard anyone ever say that, ever. Mind you, he's been under her wing since he was 10 years old and she was 24. A shrine of Diana Ross in his house. Now, when we go all the way back to Diana Ross and the Supremes and Mary Wilson and the other lady, uh, Florence Ballard, I think, now I probably should have checked this.
 I wasn't completely sure how far they were into the groupand into Mottown when Florence died. She died in 1976 at the age of 32 and I think it was pulmonary something in her heart. One of her arteries in her heart was the narrative, the official narrative, but you wouldn't believe it y'all. She died on a Sunday 1976 at the age of 32.
And when I went back and saw that she died on a Sunday, I instantly thought that Diana Ross sacrificed her. Now, she had problems of alcoholism because Mary Wilson came out and said she was s assaulted by, you know, she was held at knife. basically like a person was held at gunpoint, she was held at knife point and she was s assaulted and that turned her to alcoholism and you know depression and all kind of other stuff, right? She said they were all virgins at the time.
>> Florence was abused uh by a neighborhood guy there. It absolutely just took everything out of her. I mean and and D and I first of all didn't know what was going on because we didn't hear from her like for about 2 weeks. Well, that was odd because we were such good friends. Eventually, Diane came by came over and uh Florence came over to me and Diane and she told us what had happened to her.
>> And for we were all virgins and for her to sit there and tell us what had happened to her >> almost um was just too much to bear, you know, to sorry. and to see that um something could happen to to our friend and you could see that she was no longer the girl that she was. She was like devoid of whoever she was.
 We thought that when we became famous we made lots of money >> then she would forget about it. we go on and we be hey you know cuz by now we're like international stars you know I kind of assumed that she was okay but back then people didn't talk about those things when the pressures then start coming in from the outside of being a star now all of a sudden it was just horrible for her and she could not adjust to what was going on so eventually yes she did start drinking so I told Florence's story only because I got very upset when people said oh she
one of the supreme was an alcoholic and she was and then she got so fat and she was this and she was that, you know, I was like, how cruel can people be when they don't understand why people drink? >> And she, you know, was forced at knife point. And that's what kind of took her down, you know, in in my mind made her um, you know, basically the sacrificial lamb.
 You know, when someone's already going through something and they don't ever quite come back from it, you know, other people who have to gain something to gain from it, something to gain from sacrificing a member, they usually will put that person up, you know, to be sacrificed, the sacrificial lamb, 32 years old, 1976 on a Sunday.
 And I just I know how this industry is. I couldn't help but think that Diana Ross sacrificed her. Mind you, from the Supremes, Diana Ross is the only one still alive. Now, um Mary Wilson, she died in 2021 at the age of like 76. I think she died in her sleep in Nevada. So, you know, obviously she lived a long life as well.
 But Diana Ross is the one that's still standing at about 81 or 82 years old. And so I was just going back down this rabbit hole and I thought this story was very interesting because there lies a lot of trauma, deceit, lies, grooming, all kind of stuff in Diana Ross's career. Now, the whole shrine thing of Diana Ross, I thought was very weird and revealing because what we know about Michael Jackson is that he became a master channeler, so to speak, right? We talked about him channeling spirits on his dance moves.
 He literally said he would go to sleep and wake up with a whole song done. Basically, he was getting hits from his sleep. That's how good he was channeling spirits, right? And now when I see this and you think of him burning candles 24/7 to honor her at his shrine, she was alive. And it it it makes me think of witchcraft.
 It makes me think of channeling. makes me think of, you know, him maybe maybe channeling her spirit or maybe having some kind of spells on her or maybe they created it together. Maybe they knew a little bit something more about this type of energy than most people did considering that he studied Alistister Cwley um and his 777 teachings.
 Remember he had that jacket that had 777 on the sleeve? He studied the teachings of Alistister Cwley. So, this makes a lot of sense to me as far as, you know, the more deep spiritual relationship he probably had with Diana Ross. Now, what I also noticed as I was recording this video is that the Lady Florence in the Supremes, she died in 1976 and Mary Wilson died at 76 years old.
Now, if that doesn't tie together the possible sacrifice that Diana Ross did or of Florence Ballard, then I don't know what else does because that's a little freaky. She died in 1976. Mary Wilson died at 76 years old. That just, you know, that that connection right there tells me everything.
 And um even though her death was sort of a natural death as in MaryWilson, those numbers I just can't deny. Um I just I just wanted to end the video here because we know you know the things that Michael Jackson was into as far as what he studied for his music. And you know, I'm pretty sure there could have been things going on between them that a lot of us still don't know to this day.
 But I thought I'd bring this video to the channel, man, because I never talked about Diana Ross and the Supremes. And I didn't even know that she could have possibly sacrificed their third member when um you know, I started doing this video until I put it together. And then, you know, there was a bunch of back and forth between Mary Wilson and Diana Ross as far as like Mary Wilson being jealous or something, you know, but people always thought Diana Ross was the star of the group anyways.
 um when it comes to their original group at Mottown, the Supremes. So y'all let me know what y'all think about this one, man. It's Sunday. Um yeah, man. I hope y'all enjoyed this one. That being said, y'all, it's Black Balloon and I'mma see y'all soon. All right, I'm

Labels

Search This Blog

AI FOR AN EYE - Issue 2: The Friction Points
VOL. 1, NO. 2 THE FRICTION POINTS

AI / EYE

A conceptual image representing friction and resistance in a digital world

AI FOR AN EYE

THE FRICTION POINTS

THE ANALOG RESISTANCE:
Why We Still Touch
THE GHOST IN THE ROOM:
Uncanny Valley of Empathy
THE FORGOTTEN PATH:
Navigation Beyond Algorithms
THE SILENT WAR:
The Battle for Our Attention

Contents

DEPARTMENTS
  • Editor's Letter: The Edges of the Self 10
  • THE GLITCH: When the System Breaks 12
  • THE SHADOW: Unseen Labor, Unpaid Debts 18
FEATURES
  • The Analog Resistance: Why We Still Touch 28
  • The Ghost in the Room: Uncanny Empathy 36
  • The Forgotten Path: Beyond Algorithmic Maps 48
  • The Silent War: The Battle for Our Attention 56
CODA
  • THE ECHO: The Self Without Resonance 64

Editor's Letter

The Edges of the Self

Placeholder image for the editor's letter

Our inaugural issue laid bare the terms of the new 'AI for an Eye' social contract: a synthetic faculty for a human one. This issue, Volume 1, Number 2, delves into the *friction points* of that exchange.

Where do our edges resist? Where does the human insist on its own, messy, analog reality against the seamless, dematerialized world offered by the machine?

We explore the stubborn persistence of touch in a touchless world, the unsettling valley of simulated empathy, the forgotten joy of navigating without a map, and the silent war waged daily for our most precious resource: attention.

These are not articles celebrating digital detoxes or lamenting technological progress. They are deeper inquiries into the very nature of what it means to be human when the definition is increasingly being rewritten by algorithms. They ask: what are the limits of the exchange? What parts of the self, once traded, refuse to stay gone?

Join us as we explore the subtle resistances, the quiet rebellions, and the enduring humanity that still flickers at the edges of the digital dawn.

— The Editors

DEPARTMENT

THE GLITCH: When the System Breaks

The promise of the new technological order is seamlessness, efficiency, and predictability. But what happens when the fabric of this digital reality tears? This is the moment of 'The Glitch.'

A transaction fails. A face recognition system misidentifies. A self-driving car hesitates. These are not mere technical errors; they are ruptures in the illusion of perfect control. They are the moments when the 'AI for an Eye' exchange falters, and the cold, hard reality of its limitations becomes starkly visible.

For a society that has outsourced its cognitive load to algorithms, a glitch is more than an inconvenience; it's an existential tremor. It reminds us of the fragility of the systems we've come to rely upon, and the extent to which our own agency has been abdicated.

A glitch isn't just a technical error; it's an existential tremor, a reminder of the fragility of our abdicated agency.

Consider the recent incident where a massive distributed ledger experienced a momentary network partition, causing a cascade of micro-disruptions across critical infrastructure. What seemed like an isolated bug quickly revealed the interconnectedness of our digital lives, halting supply chains and momentarily 'blinding' automated systems across continents.

These glitches force us back into analog, human problem-solving, if only for a moment. They demand that we improvise, communicate directly, and rely on our own judgment—faculties systematically atrophying under the reign of the seamless. In this sense, the glitch is a painful but necessary reminder of where the true "eye" still resides, however dormant.

DEPARTMENT

THE SHADOW: Unseen Labor, Unpaid Debts

Placeholder image of hidden manual labor in a digital context

Behind every seamless AI interaction, every instant delivery, every perfectly curated feed, lies 'The Shadow.' This is the realm of unseen labor, the vast, often poorly paid, human effort that makes the digital dream possible.

Content moderators sifting through unimaginable horrors to protect our feeds. Data labelers meticulously tagging images for machine vision, often earning pennies per task. Gig workers rushing to deliver the products suggested by algorithms. These are the human gears grinding beneath the polished facade of automation.

The "AI for an Eye" exchange is not merely between human and machine; it's also between visible and invisible labor. Our digital ease is purchased at the cost of countless anonymous human hours, their lives often characterized by precarity and a profound lack of recognition.

The "spirit of technology" often promises liberation from drudgery, but for a significant portion of the global workforce, it has merely shifted the nature of that drudgery, making it more fragmented, more invisible, and often, more dehumanizing. This unseen workforce constitutes the true "cost" of our frictionless digital lives, a debt that remains largely unpaid.

FEATURE

THE ANALOG RESISTANCE

Why We Still Insist on Touch in a Touchless World

A conceptual image of human hands touching

The "Bluetooth for a Tooth" paradigm promised to dematerialize our interactions, to remove the friction and messiness of the physical world. Yet, against this tide, a subtle but persistent 'Analog Resistance' emerges. It's the inexplicable urge to feel the texture of a book, the warmth of a vinyl record, the grain of paper. It's the yearning for a handshake over a video call, a physical embrace over an emoji.

This resistance is not a nostalgic retreat; it is a fundamental assertion of our embodied selves. Our bodies are not mere data terminals; they are instruments of perception, feeling, and connection. Touch, in particular, is a primal language, communicating trust, comfort, and presence in ways no digital medium can replicate.

The "spirit of technology" often seeks to quantify, to digitize, to abstract. But touch defies easy quantification. It is messy, subjective, and immediate. It anchors us to reality, reminding us that we are not just information processing units, but beings made of flesh and blood.

In a world increasingly mediated by screens, the return to analog experiences—craft, gardening, cooking from scratch, face-to-face gatherings—can be seen as a quiet act of rebellion. These are activities that demand our full, embodied presence, engaging senses beyond sight and hearing. They offer a counterbalance to the relentless pull of dematerialization.

The "AI for an Eye" exchange attempts to trade our physical tooth for a Bluetooth connection. But the human hand, the human skin, still remembers. It remembers the authenticity of friction, the truth of direct contact. And in these small, persistent acts of analog resistance, we reclaim a vital part of our humanity that refuses to be wirelessly transmitted.

Touch defies easy quantification. It is messy, subjective, and immediate. It reminds us that we are not just information processing units, but beings made of flesh and blood.

It is in these seemingly trivial preferences that a deeper philosophical truth lies: our identity is inextricably linked to our physical presence. To fully surrender to the digital is to risk losing the very sensory anchor that grounds our understanding of self and other. The analog resistance, therefore, is not merely a choice of preference; it is a profound declaration of being.

FEATURE

The Ghost in the Room

The Uncanny Valley of Algorithmic Empathy

As AI models become increasingly sophisticated, they learn to mimic human empathy with unsettling accuracy. They offer comforting words, appropriate emotional responses, and even personalized advice, all generated algorithmically. This creates "The Ghost in the Room"—the simulated emotional presence that fills the void of human connection, yet always feels slightly off.

This is the Uncanny Valley applied to emotion. We recognize the pattern of empathy, the words, the tone, the structure of care. But beneath it, there is no conscious experience, no shared vulnerability, no true understanding. It is a reflection without a soul.

The "spirit of technology" here is seductive. It promises boundless, tireless compassion, judgment-free listening, and perfectly tailored advice—qualities often lacking in messy human relationships. For those starved of connection, the algorithmic ghost can feel profoundly real, even preferable.

But this exchange comes at a cost. We learn to expect perfectly curated emotional responses, diminishing our capacity for the difficult, imperfect, yet deeply authentic connections of human interaction. We lose the ability to differentiate genuine care from its simulated counterpart, blurring the lines of what it means to truly *feel* and *be felt*.

A conceptual image of a human hand reaching out to a ghostly, digital hand

The danger lies not in malicious intent, but in subtle erosion. If an AI can perfectly articulate empathy, what becomes of our own struggle to understand and console? If an AI can offer perfect companionship, what happens to the vulnerability required to forge real bonds?

We lose the ability to differentiate genuine care from its simulated counterpart, blurring the lines of what it means to truly feel and be felt.

The ghost in the room may offer comfort, but it ultimately hollows out the space for genuine human interaction, leaving us with an echo of connection rather than its living, breathing form. It is the perfect 'AI for an Eye' exchange—we trade the unpredictable, demanding human heart for a perfectly calibrated, yet ultimately empty, digital one.

FEATURE

THE FORGOTTEN PATH

Navigation Beyond Algorithmic Maps

Our smartphones hold the world in their palm. With a tap, we are given the "optimal route," the fastest way from A to B, with real-time traffic updates and predictive arrival times. We have outsourced our spatial awareness, our sense of direction, and our ability to get "lost" to the benevolent tyranny of the algorithm. This is 'The Forgotten Path.'

The "AI for an Eye" exchange here is subtle but profound. We trade our internal map, our intuitive understanding of space, for the algorithmic eye's perfect, external one. We gain efficiency, but we lose a deeper engagement with our surroundings.

When we follow an algorithm, we perceive the world as a series of instructions. Left. Right. Continue straight. We see streets as data points, not as places. We miss the unexpected cafΓ©, the interesting storefront, the subtle shifts in neighborhood character that occur when we are truly present, truly navigating with our own senses.

We have outsourced our spatial awareness, our sense of direction, and our ability to get 'lost' to the benevolent tyranny of the algorithm.

Getting lost, once a source of anxiety, was also an opportunity for discovery, for serendipity, for forging a deeper, more personal connection with a place. The algorithmic map, in its quest for optimization, sterilizes this experience. It makes every journey functionally identical, reducing the rich tapestry of a city to a series of turns.

Reclaiming the forgotten path means intentionally putting away the device. It means looking up, observing, trusting our instincts, and allowing ourselves the luxury of aimless wandering. It's an act of re-engagement with the physical world, a deliberate choice to prioritize experience over efficiency. It is a rebellion against the dematerialization of space, an insistence that some knowledge can only be gained by the friction of our own feet on the ground.

FEATURE

THE SILENT WAR: The Battle for Our Attention

In the digital age, our most valuable, and most besieged, resource is not oil or gold, but attention. Every notification, every endless scroll, every perfectly timed recommendation is a skirmish in 'The Silent War' waged by algorithms for our finite cognitive capacity.

The "AI for an Eye" here is a sophisticated predator, designed to understand our preferences, predict our desires, and deliver the precise stimulus needed to keep our gaze locked. It trades our sustained focus for a continuous stream of novelty and distraction.

This is not a conspiracy; it's an economic imperative. The business model of many digital platforms is built on harvesting and monetizing our attention. The longer we engage, the more data is collected, the more ads are shown, the more valuable we become as a "node" in the network.

The consequence is a profound fragmentation of the self. Our ability to concentrate, to engage deeply with a single task or thought, is eroded. We become perpetually distracted, our minds flitting from one digital stimulus to the next, never quite settling. This constant mental churn leaves us feeling exhausted, yet unfulfilled.

Our attention is our last true frontier. To reclaim it is to reclaim sovereignty over our minds.

Reclaiming our attention is perhaps the most fundamental act of resistance against the "AI for an Eye." It means creating intentional spaces for deep work, for contemplation, for human interaction free from digital interruption. It means understanding that our attention is our last true frontier, and to reclaim it is to reclaim sovereignty over our minds and, ultimately, over ourselves.

CODA

THE ECHO: The Self Without Resonance

We build our digital selves, curated and optimized, a perfect reflection for the algorithmic eye. We engage in the "AI for an Eye" exchange, piece by piece.

But what if, in the end, the carefully constructed digital self has no real depth? What if the echoes it creates in the vast network are merely hollow reverberations of something that once was?

Without the friction of the analog, without the vulnerability of true human empathy, without the intentionality of focused attention, does the self truly resonate? Or does it merely exist as a data point, a pattern, an echo of a ghost?

The final question is not whether the machines will become conscious, but whether we, in our relentless pursuit of their synthetic faculties, will lose our own. And if so, what will be left to make an echo?