WHY ARE THE JACKSON CHILDREN WHITE?

Tifffany asked me a question I liked so much, I'm going to blog on it:   "Does Michael Jackson's chart tell us anything about rumors his children are not biologically his."

Astrology just takes a set of facts and makes a deduction. Here are some facts. Michael Jackson was extremely insecure about his appearance (natal Venus conjunct Uranus causes the concept of beauty to be erratic, unstable and even unusual). Both planets were in the show-off sign of Leo. He hated his father (natal Sun square Saturn). He was a Virgo (extremely critical) with Pluto conjunct his Sun (control issues).

So just with this little bit of information, would a person who had this chart want to control the images of their children? Some people would and some wouldn't, because astrology does not dictate your behavior. You do. In Michael's case, knowing that he altered his physicality drastically, I say he would also would want to control his children's appearance. And the only way to do that would be to genetically pick the father and mother.

In Michael's defense, he really loved children. He never lied about that. And I totally believe he would have loved his own biological children. However, Michael was rich and famous (and if that doesn't tweek you, what will?) and a control freak.

What do you think?