"Hi, you blocked me one day on twitter; -obviously since you got no reaction (apart from a couple tweets) it's not a matter of personal concern."
[@U2gigs erased the tweet I was responding to, when the response caused them to block me, but not before I'd taken the screenshot. This was my original tweet they replied to which had the hyperlinked explanation for why I was making the tweet at all, a link they obviously never hopped to look at (that I'll have to archive, I guess, as I want to terminate the FB account).] This was their response to my announcement:
At the time I did make an honest effort to explain to them what they'd missed by being too congenitally limited www-wise to even hop a link. (I will dutifully chronical the effort by putting the tweets they rendered themselves incapable of seeing in the sidebar, which is not necessarily to repeat myself, as the communique below makes no mention about the Trudeau Trans Mountain pipeline, or Sir John A. MacDonald, or Bono's NATO trip, -things that were developing at the time. The part that is repetition, is testament to the truism that ignorance is bliss.) So today, to rectify what they did to themselves for the sake of bliss, and so they might understand my reaction they found so condemnatory was not out of cruelty but understandable bitterness, -for my Happy Sunday exercise I tried to solve their unfortunate situation by dispatching them this letter in the morning. (Publishing this as oppsed to just privately sending it is to rectify, in part perhaps, why I've been gone for so long, because the social-media-verse is in no way versed in why I disappeared. That and Life happens. In short, @U2gigs inadvertently succeeded in making themselves great copy by which to explain the situation.)
"Hi, you blocked me one day on twitter; -obviously since you got no reaction [you could see] it's not a matter of personal concern.
However, I would like to point out the depths you avoided due to your inability to hop a link or two and look at the information presented, rather blithely concluding I was reacting out of some sort of pitiable emotional depravity because you apparently are either functionally illiterate or www functionally illiterate or both. One of the linked articles (if you done any sort of looking at all) happened to be this one, which someone was so kind as to publish.
I'm sure from your perspective of U2's nigh sainthood the title surely appears bats*** insane, no surprises there.
By the time I was attempting to publish the above article, my computer was attacked and taken down by a ransomware hack that succeeded (on an Apple); within a month of recovery I lost all the research for my next article (a year’s worth). My "hard drive" inexplicably corrupted one day and I lost everything. The tech who examined it declared its corruption to be exceedingly unusual.
I had been censored arbitrarily by Facebook off and on ever since November 2016, initiated by a three day black out and inability to post a reply in any comment field FB provided on any news article anywhere on the web.
-What caused this?
-I'd made one comment about U2's live elect HIllary rendition of "Desire" on iHeart radio (The song literally has this line "she's the promise, in the year of election".
I tried to put it anywhere there was news (with a comment field) of the performance (as the news appeared in real time). I wasn't able to post it anywhere, maybe once or twice when the comment field was administered by some totally marginal outlet, -something other than Facebook or Disqus. My censorship on Disqus and the like ran at 60 percent or more at the time. [This is if you’re examining the comments overall in terms of their length, the length of the sourcing provided, their overall effectiveness and effort, as well as timing (as we well know on the www, timing is everything.) If you’re really detail oriented you’d notice I was starting to condense information on single Facebook linked posts to back things up, those links were not short. In short, the more self-publishing was involved, the more consistent the censorship became, so I began to put it down to having my own website the algorithms were detecting. Developments showed that this really was not the case after first getting "flagged", as it were.] Of course one liners that aren’t about serious corporate negligence and the politics involved don’t get censored.)
I was censored because I was providing link sourced information on the bomb trains scandal, -you likely don't know what that is. (Why would you I was censored, and so presumably was anyone else.)
That prompted my first published investigative article, which only came about because I had just finished writing a first draft of a book that centered on U2 by way of their lyrics, which put me in the rather unpleasant position of paying attention to the band at the ultimately unfortunate moment when 47 of my countrymen and women were burned alive by the crash of an oil train out of Bakken. (Actually I was penning an open essay addressed "to" Bono that mentioned the oil train issue and how RED was indirectly being sponsored by them by way of Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett's investments/assets, and within 48 hours of my posting it on the world wide web, those 47 people were burned alive.)
That was a moment of total heartbreak, having been a fan of the band for 30 plus years. It was prompted because NYT (and everywhere else) would not allow me to provide any segment of this information in comment fields, -as apparently Gates, Buffett and Bono are inviolable topics if you're making the RED financing connection to bomb trains and #NoDAPL. This essay turned article was my FU at blanket online censorship I would never tolerate. If subject to it, I could come back with all the information in lethal concentration at a thousand times power so that it actually had bite, which it should given what happened to #NoDAPL protesters, -not to mention the 47 compatriots burned alive.
It started out as an essay blog post, all link substantiated. Tumblr link washed (erased every substantiating link, two years of work) -in the blog essay, without my consent. They all just disappeared, and that was on four different posts of the essay as it was subject to editing. But that didn't happen before I copy pasted the entire essay to my own website. You could not google the vast bulk of the links I possessed; -I tried when writing the article. The escalating censorship was enough to put my back up and make me turn it into something. It forced the obvious that it had to be done, because the information was being blanket suppressed in individual formats. Someone didn't want it out there even at the microscopic level.
"Compatriots" means you should figure out that I'm Canadian. I took virtually no political position on the US electoral 2016 race other than to consider the two candidates un-votable, which I hardly mentioned. But when I analyzed that one moment of U2's participation in Election 2016, that was when I got censored for days on Facebook and they made it clear after that that any comments I made to friends were monitored on an individual basis by Facebook. Responses to news (or say U2) FB posts, you could forget it.
The next time they censored me for days was when an individual friended me on the basis of my first RED is funded by DAPL pipeline/bombtrains article (declaring it "a gem of investigative reportage"). When Facebook disappeared me, I was trying to let him know the value of the sourcing, which included that I had the actual environmental/engineering report by a Native American pipeline engineer who was presenting this argument in court for tribes against the Dakota Access Pipeline (they won on this basis: it proceeded regardless).
Yes, Facebook was censoring me over the first U2 article. I have never once been notified, when made unable to post, that I have violated any terms of service, but they arbitrarily erased my replies to friends and wiped out my ability to post often enough (plus confining my home feed so that there was no public setting to post in, just “Friends only”, to boot); -in summation there was enough going on to generate fear of the implication that they were monitoring my every comment after that, because this happened more than once, -and it began happening arbiltrarily when I replied on wholly unrelated topics, including the non-political. Which makes any time spent on there really redundant, doesn't it? There are so many ways to render one invisible without them even knowing it, and they'd certainly let me know they were paying attention enough to selectively erase my statements. Basically, your metric of effectiveness in that situation becomes when you effectively disappear.
So I've disappeared for a long time now. When I had my vituperative moment of black humour, I hadn't been online for months then either.
I want to congratulate you for your inadvertent participation in online censorship by blocking me as a pitiable, spiteful person because I found a certain laughable irony in Bono losing his voice for one night, since my online presence had been effectively erased based on the articles I wrote pertaining to them, which could have served to create exposure which would have aided me in self-publishing. I think you need to be aware of the sheer magnitude of the implications of truth telling that you helped erase, -the scale of the horror which you utterly failed to grasp.
So, I'm appealing to you to read just one small segment of what I wrote. I'm directing your attention to my fifth article, the one that appears totally insane from your perspective: "HOW U2’S 2017 JOSHUA TREE TOUR ACCLIMATES AMERICAN THEOCRATIC FASCISM":
How you would feel if when touring your country, U2 lauded one figure in government as a leading feminist, -Canada's Foreign Minister; -who just happens to be the grand daughter of a WWII Nazi propagandist? How would you feel about that sort of propaganda as art performed to your compatriots in every city on the Canadian tour? But that, ironically, is the least of the issues of this (Liberal) neoliberal apparatchik, as no one should be blamed for the sins of their fathers. Unless of course, the apple isn't falling far from the tree... which is why I ask you to read the beginning of Part 2 of the above article. My (fully link substantiated) accusation as per our Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, was that she had utterly Trump-ified Canadian foreign policy so that it was indistinguishable. She had steered our entire foreign policy rightwards into lockstep, so rightward and so precisely it performed Trump's every foreign policy desire.
This month it was officially validated that my title for the article was not bats*** insane; -I make no accusation lightly and do not cheapen those words (most everyone does).
This is what came to light, despite the Canada wide black out of this news by all Canadian media.
From the article provided in the above tweet:
"Wouldn’t you think the corporate media would be interested in the US embassy’s reaction to the appointment of a new Canadian foreign minister? Especially if that reaction was to claim Ottawa had decided to adopt an 'America First' foreign policy?
At the start of the month Communist Party researcher Jay Watts disclosed a dispatch from the US embassy in Ottawa to the State Department in Washington entitled 'Canada Adopts ‘America First’ Foreign Policy.' Uncovered through a freedom of information request, the largely redacted cable also notes that Justin Trudeau’s government would be 'Prioritizing U.S. Relations, ASAP.'
The March 2017 cable was authored just weeks after Freeland was appointed foreign affairs minister. US officials concluded that Trudeau promoted Freeland 'in large part because of her strong U.S. contacts' and that her 'number one priority' was working closely with Washington."
It goes without saying that "Most Canadians don’t want Ottawa following US policy, particularly with a widely disliked individual as president."
By using Trump's MAGA phrase "America First" as title on a US Embassy dispatch to describe Freeland's appointment to helm Canada's foreign policy, it is readily apparent exactly whose foreign policy tack they expected Freeland to take. They already knew. Try searching "Trump" and "fascist", -if the terms are not already resplendent together ad nauseam in your Facebook and Twitter feeds, omnipresent in both the news media and in constant iteration as equivalent by the general population.
In Canada our Liberals are neoliberals, our Prime Minister Trudeau is in the same mold as the Clintons and France's Emmanuel Macron (I mentioned how on that 2017 Tour Bono was also PR schmoozing Macron at his lowest point in the polls to date. Predictably, look where he is now (the #giletsjaunes protests enter week 35).
Twitter Canadian in accord: "Here's more on the #YellowVests. Imagine if these atrocities on protestors were carried out in the "dictatorships" of Venezuela [unqualified] or North Korea [qualifies] or Iran or any of the nations considered to be USA's enemies."
Not only do neoliberals excel in austerity and wholesale privatization measures (heard about the future of all of France's airports yet) that put entire nations in uproar, they excel in using military supplies on passive domestic protesters who are doing their darn-dest, for the most part, to avoid arrest (in order to not lose their numbers so they can continue the protest). They are so hostile to progressivism that the neoliberal helmed DNC subverted and corrupted their own internal electoral process to ensure the burial of Bernie Sanders, -just as the neoliberal Blairite faction in Britain's Labour Party is seeking to destroy progressive Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn through the McCarthyite witch-hunt of redefining anti-semitism to mean opposition to Israel's ethnic oppression and illegal military occupation of the Occupied Territories, even if resistance is so passive as to constitute consumer choice, namely the BDS movement, or even observation of Israeli manipulations of the domestic body politic that interfere with that politic (to the extent of aiding, financing and instructing foreign party faction machinations to attack and depose a foreign party leader).
-That's right, neoliberals redefined people opposing a government that exceeds apartheid in its policies as the very sort of racist hate mongers they are opposed to, -resistance to a nation state defined on ethnic racism to the point of extirpation. Every one of these [neo]liberal democratic leaders referenced, Trudeau, Freeland, Macron, and Hillary Clinton are on record redefining opposition to the policies of the most racist-ly defined nation state on earth, as racism. Chelsea Clinton lately accused Ihan Omar of antisemitism on twitter for the audacity to state the reality of AIPAC's prodigious funding of individual US Congressional members in return for support of Israel, to the extent of requiring legislative attacks on the First Amendment in the form of criminalizing BDS, in exchange for money. This is a bipartisan effort in the US, and is cited by Counterpunch as being initiated to attack Ihan Omar by the liberal wing of the US body politic in the form of (Zionist) Batya Ungar-Sargon:
"The campaign began with the employment of the most fundamental Zionist propaganda ploy – the conflation of Judaism and Zionism. The instigator Batya Ungar-Sargon – a liberal Zionist editor at The Forward who bizarrely claimed to speak for 'American Jews' – accused Ilhan Omar of 'anti-Semitism' in response to the congresswoman’s valid critique of the Israeli-American relationship and the well-documented influence of Zionist lobbies on Washington. Then, The Forward opportunistically used Ungar-Sargon’s smear to fundraise as a vanguard against anti-Semitism."
"Very quickly following Ungar-Sargon’s accusation, Chelsea Clinton chimed in co-signing her endorsement of Ungar-Sargon’s tweet 'as an American'.
Clinton was later confronted for her role in the smear campaign against Omar at a vigil for the victims of the Islamophobic massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand. Unsurprisingly, hardcore Zionist and Trump apologist Alan Dershowitz rushed to Clinton’s defense." - Counterpunch, "The Ilhan Omar Gambit: Anti-Semitism as a Reactionary Political Tool" -This is the notorious tweet in question.
Rather disingenously, Desrhowitz defended Chelsea Clinton by omitting the definition of anti-semitism she endorsed entire (while Ungar-Sargon erased it from Twitter), as well as cropping off the significant race tinged othering preamble she performed by co-signing Ungar-Sargon's tweet "as an American".
It is a worthy digression to note that Counterpunch is citing the least of Dershowitz's issues, which includes a string of written rape apologia (including insinuating the child sexual abuse scandal endured by the Catholic Church was probably more due to children lying about abuse), defending the consumption of child porn as a harmless activity that should be protected by individual freedom and right to privacy, as well as his case defense of an actual child rapist (a Rabbi) where he engaged in a smear campaign of the victim's father. He's also an attorney who lately acted as a consultant for the defense in the first criminal case against FGM to take place in the United States; -the good doctor's legal team succeeded in getting the charges dropped. This career course was only highlighted due to his successful defense of Jeffrey Epstein, when the two were in a longstanding relationship going back to 1996. Before Dershowitz himself was accused by one of Epstein's victims of rape, he stood accused by Jeffrey Epstein's housekeeper of full knowledge of Epstein's crimes:
"According to an Undisputed Statement of Fact filed by the victims’ lawyers in April of 2011, 'Epstein’s housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein’s house during the years when Epstein was assaulting minor females on a daily basis' and 'Dershowitz was at Epstein’s house at times when underage females where there being molested by Epstein.'
(Rodriguez, who died recently from cancer, received a harsher punishment for trying to sell his former boss’s journal than Epstein did for molesting children.)
When Epstein was asked during his deposition, “'Have you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age of 18?' he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to answer in order to avoid self-incrimination." - The Electronic Intifada, "How Alan Dershowitz bullied rape victims to protect a seial child molester"
This seems like one hell of a example of "With defenders like these, who needs enemies?", and is further enforced by the fact that Epstein's alleged madame or handler, Ghislaine Maxwell, attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding, post Epstein's conviction Dershowitz helped get him off for (though prior to that 2015 defamation lawsuit she launched that Epstein's suicide coincided with, in terms of the release of over 2000 sealed court documents pertaining to the suit happening the day after). The plea deal Dershowitz helped design granted immunity for Maxwell and all other potential accomplices, which potentially included himself. In the course of the subsequent expose of his co-architecture of the plea deal thanks to the Pulitzer Prize winning Miami Herald, -Dershowitz's meter for public affrontry in the ensuing scandal appears to have gone completely awol, (as in it's only triggerable by Twitter backlash), which he seems to take pleasure in provoking. (What Dershowitz's constitutional argument is blithely omitting is that an earlier age for the right to an abortion (without parental consent) that is lower than the age of consent for sexual intercourse is necessary because of the prevalence of incest in the United States, -a taboo sub-category of even more prevalent statutory rape, which was put to him much more succinctly by Twitterverse. You need the age of autonomy for obtaining an abortion to be lower than the age of sexual consent due to statutory rape.) Predictably Epstein was connected to Mohammed bin Salman and two former Israeli Prime Ministers.
Also MIA is The Guardian's post investigative piece on Epstein's protected accomplices continuing life in suites of Epstein's notorious East 66th building where underage (possibly trafficked) models were kept. Epstein's brother may have majority control by owning the majority the condos in the building, but/or is it true, as per the first link in the above paragraph, that the building's owner formerly rented a suite to (fellow Hillary Clinton donor) Ghislaine Maxwell, that she also hosted a campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton presided by Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law at another of her NYC properties; -a woman who just happens to be this individual (scroll down to "Lynn Forester de Rothchild's surprising interest in Epstein"), and had her first honeymoon night as a Rothschild in the Lincoln bedroom at the Clinton White House?
"Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is not just a Clinton friend, she was a campaign surrogate for Clinton in 2008 and a campaign contribution bundler in the current election cycle [2015]. She is in the inner circle of the national Democratic Party. In one email, released this week by Wikileaks, she advises reigning in Senator Elizabeth Warren's economic message as being too left." - The Mockingbird, "Trump Clinton rape and the media" [CAVEAT: Have I been able to ascertain Mockingbord's property ownership allegation connecting Esptein to Hillary Clinton? No, that would make me a real journalist. That was when I stopped writing this because I don't have the time to be one and that was a serious can of worms right there. BTW, I think the rape allegation against Trump by the then thirteen year old proffered by Esptein is false. I ran into an article that took that completely apart, but unfortunately don't have it. In other words, if "26 flights", some without security Clinton had gone head to head on Epstein scandals with the Trump imbroglio election 2016, the Clintons would have probably lost, so the scum remained under the capret.]
(Part of what @U2gigs missed in blocking me was that Gates Foundation was funding The Guardian, who were responsible for initiating a liberal media echo chambered piece (which made it a SEME engineering exercise that performed double duty in that it helped hide Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's DAPL investment (which ran in the billions of dollars) if you searched for investors, -while Buffet funded environmental groups were advocating a boycott of any banks bankrolling the project, (which also neatly avoided the investors, -except for The Guardian outing Trump as one of course (see 3))). The Guardian outed Trump as a DAPL investor during #NoDAPL's state violence peak in the final heat of the 2016 election, (when Gates Foundation was invested over 1600 times as much as Trump was at the time, and that figure itself was based on false reportage). This event demonstrates that reportage by omission can be exercised to potentially devastating effect, and was exercised by The Guardian in the interest of Bill Gates' and Gates Foundation >50% funder Warren Buffett's political leanings (both supported Hillary Clinton in both '08 and '16). In other words we're dealing with a potential pattern that isn't exactly new. The DAPL mis-reporting happened while Gates Foundation was providing half of Bono's RED funding to the tune of $128 million that year, -and U2 that fall put out two live performances in the last heat of the 2016 election, both bogifying Trump and advocating voting for Hillary Clinton. I don't have a problem with differing political inclinations (within the usual limits). I do have a problem if they reflect serious funding, or pay to play.)
Not too incidentally, the same Guardian who was demonstrably gatekeeping for its philanthropic funders is now also vetting itself to British MoD intelligence handlers and submitting to their demands. (Don't worry, NYT does it too.) Two weeks after The Guardian news dropped, Luke Harding ran his news bomb that Manafort had met Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy based on anonymous intelligence sources, patently fake news which was (also) destroyed (shoddy editing aside) within 24 hours by Twitterverse, a now routine reaction with exhaustive documentation. So The Guardian is being moderated by, -you know, the same bunch who will be outed in this article for inserting a M16 agent as a leading Nazi into a German Nazi political party when it nearly presented the danger of gaining seats, and sent Canada their 2000 Waffen SS Ukrainian POWs absent background checks they lied had already taken place, who ran the Skripal propo and decided Assange should be reframed as a Russian agent beginning with the Climategate emails release.
Worm-holes aside, it would serve to be aware of where Chelsea Clinton is deriving her "BDS is anti-semitism" ideological attack of Ihan Omar from ( in terms of who shares or who initiated it), -namely who was the first leading politician to launch this definition of anti-semitism in the political-verse, and who first sought to criminalize this definition of anti-semitism as a hate crime using a nation's laws, thereby criminalizing any articulated opposition to the Occupation? (I think it was the first attempt at criminalizing opposition to the Israeli Occupation in the world, and as a free speech attack, probably the most extreme.)
It was Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This was how he wanted to attack Canadians. In terms of his religious/conservative/Heritage Front linked constituency base, Harper was the Canada lite version of Donald Trump. (Google it, -Heritage Front was a late bloomer Canada lite version of the KKK with a very brief tenure, -still managed to accomplish a full blown riot in downtown Ottawa in the early '90's that the media were far too terrified to report.) "Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper (who in the 1980s was a member of the extreme right-wing Northern Foundation, which had Heritage Front and Reform Party members, along with skinheads, anti-abortionists, Holocaust-deniers and Conrad Black)" - that's a quote from the author of Race Traitor: The True Story of Canadian Intelligence's Greatest Cover-Up, -the cover up being that for four years, "one of [Heritage Front]’s leaders was a CSIS agent, Grant Bristow." CSIS is the Canadian equivalent of the CIA. -Hair beginning to stand up yet?
This article mentions that the subsequent government inquiry into this topic collapsed the Reform Party by highlighting it was infiltrated by Heritage Front members. You will find the Heritage Front's tenure as an organization is pretty much in lockstep with the time period of the Reform Party's peak in reach and power. I'd like to digress here with the honorary mention that M16 performed the exact same gambit in Germany (and Germany's own federal domestic security service was equally guilty at the time) -lest anyone seek to protect their vulnerable psyches by leaping to construe this is a bad apple situation or an instance of policy run amok, or assuming the catch-all that this is a conspiracy theory.
The Canadian government ideologically attacked its own citizenry by deliberately fostering a neonazi group in the country that infiltrated a leading (originally seperatist) western political party (the Reform Party), in order to bolster that party with such a constituency, until it eventually reached the level of political power where it was able to swallow mainstream conservativism in the nation whole. The subversion of the nation, between our own secret service and US ex-pats helming Reform Party policy, was and is incalculable.
PM Harper was the end product of America's protracted subversive remaking of the Canadian Conservative party so that it became the Coors Lite version of the American GOP. (-Research party lead advisor Tom Flanagan, who was an American citizen and directed both Reform Party and Conservative Party policy, once the two were merged with a massive Reform Party majority). He only lost his esteemed position due the fact that he literally mirrored Dershowitz's comments on child pornography in public, a position he was supported for editorially in the National Post by none other than Conrad Black. (-You want to talk election interference? -How ‘bout remaking an entire political party in your own image?) Canada's Conservatives didn't used to be that way, but when the party was swallowed whole in its merger with the much larger Reform Party (which launched out of Alberta, btw, which just happens to be where a whole lot of those former Ukrainian Nazis and former Heritage Front people are concentrated, more than in any other province), it became a wholly different animal. "Stephen Harper first represented an Ontario constituency as a Member of Parliament for the Reform Party of Canada in 1993."
It was Prime Minister Harper who officially launched the present neoliberal anti-semite definition, arbitrarily conflating it to mean opposition to Israel's occupation (specifically BDS), in a speech to the Israeli Knesset in 2014 (it's at the bottom of the page). Let that all sink in please, as in, kindly register where the neoliberals got their "BDS is anti-semitism" policy plank from before we continue with this unholy mess.
As indication of the depths of just how ugly this sleight of hand redefinition is, this attack on conscientious objectors to a race based implementation of a nation in the ME by eradicating the indigenous has always been rooted in a deep vein of religious fundamentalist oriented fascism (with a racist maraschino cherry on top - "Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, [Harper] pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions." - Stephen Harper and the Theocons), -irrespective of which country it happens to be in. It is a linkage of alliance in the far right globally by religious allegiance to the most fascistic xenophobic race based nation state on earth, a nation designated to God's chosen people by breeding, to the exclusion of every other inhabitant.
(If you think this religiosity isn't a binding element, it's high time you register the torching of the planet's lungs taking place right now, effected by the leadership of one fascist-leaning Bolsanaro. The USA engaged in a decades long campaign of altering the religious make up of Brazil, shifting it from Catholic liberation theology to (predictably) Pentacostal evangelism. The result? -Bolsanaro's constituency, which he only arrived at given his recent baptism in Israel (2015), signifying his conversion to evangelism. Both Google's Youtube and Facebook's WhatsApp were responsible for altering the course of this election to default on fascism. Why this toxic combo, a one, two punch of fundamentalism applied by technocracy?)
Israel's exclusion of the indigenous runs to the extent of deliberately subjecting the inhabitants of Gaza to sewage and otherwise polluted drinking water and exacting prolonged malnutrition near starvation level on the subject population to deliberately degrade the population, in tandem with subjecting them to the constant oppression in an open air prison. Canada applied the same starvation methodology to First Nations for decades, -and then produced decades long studies on the outcomes of the subject population. Israel's techniques in Gaza indicate a pronounced effort to add the absorption of pollutants and toxins to the methodology, a new escalation. It is not like this programme is being performed in ignorance. Canada studied the effects on a population they themselves did it to.
Gaza is in its 71st week of peaceful protest with 270 dead and thousands wounded.
In adopting a definition of anti-semitism that equates opposition to these acts as a hate crime in order to attack the true left, neoliberals mirrored Trump and the GOP's position on Israel. When the chant of "send her back" is opined as irrefutably marking the fascist character of American leadership presently, those neoliberals should be looking in the mirror and reflecting on what they enabled by adopting this definition and making it bipartisan, now honed to a specific human target; -we now have bipartisan consensus that Ihan Omar is racist, an anti-semite expressing hate. The death threats she receives arrive in no small part because of their accusation, taken to its vilest racist emphasis by Trump.
It is the inevitable conclusion: -Trump's intonations of they hate our country, they should leave, while conflating love of Israel with love of America as if they were one and the same in the same breath, is the end fulmination of this attack, inaugurating "Send her back". This moment, by all accounts (go ahead, web search) is the utterance and imprint of fascism upon the nation, iterated as racism. If the internet is anything to go by, it is the left/MSM's universal position. In other words, this is not about listening to me, -it's about listening to yourselves. However, we have a serious problem: Trump's conflated form of attack on Ihan Omar is enabled and made possible because of the inversion of the definition of anti-semitism neoliberals were all to happy to adopt in order to marginalize the true left, redefining Ihan Omar's position on BDS as racist, for opposing nationalized racism.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Justin Trudeau's condemnation of Trump's declaration is in this sense, rank hypocrisy. He enabled the Orange One by labelling BDS anti-semitism. Angela Merkel did the same.
Which brings us back the point of this message: -you missed a big one here (as in, guess what shoes U2 were wearing). You missed it because you are U2 fans and they made you miss it through your trust and loyalty. You labeled my reaction as hate, when I was trying to alert you to the fact that while you were sleeping, in my country, ever so subtly, U2 were giving a veiled endorsement of fascism, branding it feminism. (Again, read Minister Freeland's numerous policy positions iterated in my nearly deep six'ed article, especially with respects to Ukraine. She appeared in the "leading feminists" video montage roster for U2's “Ultraviolet" for every Canadian performance stop.)
I want to point out that in this month's news in Canada, she was outed as a Trumptopian, which is exactly what she is, -that the American Embassy celebrated her appointment in those terms at the time. I tried to tell you last year. You censored me for trying to alert you to hate subsumed as national policy (again, Nazi infiltration of the ruling party's military in Ukraine (the Azov Battalion were absorbed into Ukraine's military, but the infiltration is also SBU (Security Bureau) and the police) being actively supported by Canada's foreign policy because of the minister U2 dubbed a leading feminist; -Freeland sends Canadian arms to this army, and sends them the Canadian army in a training capacity as well; -she participated in public protests leading to the violent coup in Ukraine). Thanks to Freeland, Canadian men serving in Ukraine are offering Ukrainian Nazi salutes. This is part and parcel of Canadian Liberal foreign policy, and so is her mirrored targeting "against states targeted by Washington for regime change, including Venezuela, Russia, Nicaragua, Syria, and Iran." - The Grayzone
"Under Freeland, the granddaughter of a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist, Canada has strongly campaigned against Russia, strengthened its ties with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and played a key role in the US-led right-wing coup attempt in Venezuela." (Ben Norton missed a pivotal and rather disturbing Vancouver summit with Chrystia Freeland advocating a Canadian naval blockade against North Korea (because her intentions there didn't come to apparent fruition, a singular effort which makes her even worse than Trump.) -Welcome to Freeland's foreign policy. -This was literally endorsed by U2 as leading feminism. The article at right on the North Korea summit should make your hair stand straight up when you recognize the pivotal nature of Freeland's position in all of this:
"Further, what most Canadians and perhaps the general population in the West do not know, is that Canada is an important partner in the NATO/NORAD and UN command and intelligence structures and does most of the top military coordination in exercises and operations between the nations of NATO currently exercising on the border with Russia, and especially in the Ukraine. Most officers in the Canadian military are trained in a comprehensive way that allows them to operate in an integrated manner with US, UK, NATO, and U.N. forces around the globe. Throughout all U.S. global military actions, whether in the Gulf and Afghan wars, or currently all over the world, Canada’s military and military intelligence, considered the best in the world, has worked hand in hand with the U.S. military in special operations and counter intelligence." -emphasis mine, quote from "Chrystia Freeland is More Dangerous Than Tony Blair: North Korea War Plan" (01/26/18)
She's way more dangerous than Tony Blair. We have a Nazi grandchild war hawk presiding over the European axis to WWII, and at this summit she was steering policy in a way where she'd have been inserting her warhawk intent into a second theatre against China (putting her, by way of the Canadian milltary, on both the eastern and western front against the Russia-China axis), by mobilizing the Canadian Navy against North Korea (the Vancouver summit was about pitching Canada implement a naval military blockade for interdiction to pressure North Korea with sanctions and cause internal collapse).
"Canadians mostly consider themselves non-militaristic, but as intelligence and military officials know around the world, the Canadian Navy are experts at interdictions at sea and are more preferred in interdiction than the U.S. Navy. Canada has had much experience perfecting these capabilities in interdictions off the coast of Africa, as well a[s] in the Persian Gulf during the two Gulf Wars."
Natch. -If you keep reading that article beyond the above quotes, I can guarantee you your hair is going to stand up another inch, because this summit was Chrystia Freeland attempting to put her finger on the North Korean "rheostat", as the NY speaker from the CFR describes it. She already has her finger on the Ukrainian one.
Let me tell you, nothing sucks so much as to be right.
Congratulations on such an epic failure @U2gigs, unknowingly jumping to suppress the already suppressed truth. U2's 2017 homage to minister Freeland is exactly the endorsement she's received from corporate paid left media. They avoided ugly truth of this embassy cable with total silence, -and laud her leading feminism.
As per Yves Englers' article: "While the blackout was media wide, most striking was the lack of reaction by one of the most left-wing commentators afforded space in a corporate daily. In December Toronto Star [left as mainstream media in Canada gets] columnist Heather Mallick described Freeland as 'likely winner of Canadian of the Year, should that prize exist.' In a number of previous columns she called Freeland 'Canada’s famously feminist Foreign Minister', a 'brilliant and wonderful Liberal candidate' and lauded 'a stark, extraordinary speech [Freeland delivered] in Washington on Wednesday after receiving a diplomat of the year award at the Foreign Policy forum.'
While she praises Freeland, Mallick is hostile to Donald Trump. [Yves Engler, article's author] emailed Mallick to ask if she’d seen the cable, whether she planned to write about it and if she considered it ironic that US officials thought her 'Canadian of the Year' was pursuing an ‘America First’ policy. She didn’t respond to two emails, but on Tuesday she praised Freeland again."
Mallick praised Freeland's continual emphasis of Canada's rule of law and working immigration system in an article condemning Trump's latest racism in attacking the four Congresswomen. Ludicrously Mallick declared how our immigration system works, but not for racists. While our immigration system certainly does work, it certainly didn't once when Britain overrode it post WWII, and made us take 2000 Waffen SS Ukrainian POWs they’d been holding, as immigrants (along with another thousand Nazi POWs of different nationality). The British lied to us that they'd already been background checked. (They never were.) Their descendants contribute, not insignificantly, to Freeland's constituency; -her heavily Ukrainian constituency made her a Liberal MP.
U2 demonstrated to the whole world what neoliberalism's cover for their fascistic unipolar "endless war" thrust was and is (identity politics, -"feminism" foremost). They did it first. Bono's been at it for a while, ever since peak #NoDAPL.
I wonder if U2 performed that stunt onstage to your country, lauded a foreign minister who is a supporter of fascism infiltrated by Nazism in her former country, by bending your own country to its support, using your country's military as her finger on the geostrategic ground zero potential hot button for WWIII (tilting against Russia; -the geostrategic hot button being the country her Nazi grandpa immigrated from, where Russia defeated the Nazis); -if you watched U2 laud that person as one of the nation's leading feminists, would it hurt to watch?
If there had been any sense of reality, Freeland's visage should have appeared on the big screen when U2 were lambasting Trump. If you're performing public sleight of hands of that fashion, you're doing worse actually, than supporting Trump, because of the level at which this is a wholesale deception of the audience. If you believe in Divine provenance, it wouldn't be any surprise given those shenanigans if God that thought Bono deserved to lose his voice for a night or two.
Chrystia Freeland knows exactly who her grandfather is, and knows what her commemoration means.
In Context: Firstly, the Context @U2gigs Blocked at the Time in Order to Not Know, -and its Graduation to the Present
This was enriched by the moment, i.e., the progressions on the article's subject matter were hard to miss, which made it especially infuriating in terms of the realm @U2gigs opted to remain in total ignorance about.
First off, there was the subject I had tweeted about the night before, marking the first time I tweeted about any matter in about a year since censorship descended and I withdrew online (the timing of the tweets just happening to coincide quite closely to when Bono actually lost his voice onstage). The two tweets indentified that Bono was now performing as an indirect enabler of the programme of online censorship I had been subject to (since the entity I was erased by online was Facebook, a very significant investment of his, with its COO, Sheryl Sandberg, performing on his ONE Board of DIrectors). This was due to the fact that he had recently written a Medium post where he declared "NATO is being threatened".
This happened to be precisely in tandem with when NATO was preparing to engage in the largest war games on the Russian border to ever occur since WWII, -as well as after it had exceeeded its mandate in bombing Libya (Canadian fighter pilots engaged in the NATO bombing of Libya as escorts ruefully joked they were "Al Qaeda Air"), -not to mention after NATO's occupation in Afghanistan succeeded in upping its opium production more than 8000 fold (in tonnage) (again a questionable matter of exceeding NATO's mandate), making the nation the world's leading source of opium after production had been nigh extirpated by the Taliban. The requisite sociatal wreckage that proceeds from the increased consumption of such an astronomic increase in production duly followed (the opiate epidemic).
More to the point, this was a mere two months after Facebook announced it was going to partner with the Atlantic Council, (which functions as NATO's private lobby), to help censor Facebook.
-To interrupt the thought train with some context, Bono was an invitation only investor before Facebook went public, which has made him a mouthpiece for his asset while it duly harvested our data as privacy invasion for profit ever since (to the extent of blithely selling personal profiles that were used for social engineering to the extent of throwing elections, i.e., #Brexit.) Such walking talking conflicts of interest should never get to make appearances on TEDTalks lauding Facebook et al as a exponentially real time increase function in the dissemination of democratic freedom of speech with regards to Arab Spring (that creates freedom by toppling governments), -an uprising which has whole chapters of authorship indicating Facebook's function in those collective protests was something quite the opposite. I direct you to Yasha Levine's "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet", which offers exceptional forensics in this regard, i.e., that again the cornucopia of events dubbed Arab Spring was another exercise where Facebook was again employed in social engineering, that wasn't based on another entity buying the information in order to do so (Cambridge Analytica in the Brexit/Trump cases). The platform was Facebook itself.
The fall-out was the eventual establishment of a full milltary dictatorship of Egypt, -and eventuated the pretext for NATO to destroy Libya, which was sure to be the source of the vast bulk of the refugees washing up on the near shores by Bono's villa in the south of France (located in "Eze-sur-mer, lieu décidément le plus VIP de la Riviera" - "Eze-sur-mer, the most VIP place on the Riviera" - which exists in direct proximity across the Mediterranean from Libya. Yet in the U2's album liner notes for Songs of Experience (which had a song dedicated to the war in Syria), Bono would only reference these boat refugees washing up in his locale as Syrian. Bono went on public record repeatedly and exclusively mentioning Syrian refugees because his morality was possessed of a bipartisan filter (meaning Syrian refugees weren't just the sole subject of multiple bleeding heart public pronouncements Bono made, but (as mentioned) one female Syrian refugee was made the cause celebre for the entire Joshua Tree 2017 Tour. This blanket omission on Bono's part likely had something to do with exclusive access to Hillary Clinton Bono possessed by way of being a Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative donor, indicated by the fact that U2 broadcast astronauts from the International Space Station throughout the U2 360 Tour, coupled with the accompaning subtext that Hillary was the architect of the destruction of Libya at the time.
"U2’s Bono got into the act when former Bill Clinton aide Ben Schwerin, who helped set up the Clinton Foundation, urged Abedin to help the aging rock star broadcast from the international space station. In a May 27, 2009, email with the subject line 'Bono/NASA,' Schwerin wrote, 'Bono wants to do linkup with the international space station on every show during the tour this year.… Any ideas? Thks.'" - Judicial Watch -This exclusive leverage obtained while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State fulfilled a successive pattern of privileged access obtained by Clinton Foundation donors, who appeared to obtain policy results in exchange for cash.
It certainly casts U2's livestreamed electioneering against Trump in a whole new light (09/24/16 and 10/06/16). (Alluding to this in the absence of these pertinent facts is what Facebook blanket censored me for for the first time, i.e., just commenting that the same day Bono announced his allegiance in the election 2016 race in an interview with Charlie Rose by declaring himself against Trump, he also went onstage as a speaker at the Clinton Global Initiative (which went un-mentioned by the main stream media), was something I wasn't allowed to post practically anywhere on the internet.) I thought the Clinton Global Initiative's reciprocal favours to Bono/U2 would surely be commensurate after the bald election favourtism: -I missed the fact that this functional reciprocity appeared to have already begun.
"[I]n 2011, [Bono] gathered top entertainers for 'A Decade of Difference: A Concert Celebrating 10 Years of the William J. Clinton Foundation.' According to USA Today [10/17/11] 'Some tickets were sold to the public for $50 to $550, and premium seats went for $1,000 to $5,000 on the Foundation website.'” - Judicial Watch
Granted, there is a significant amount of obfuscation as per this possible scoop with heavy interference being run on the matter by none other than the Washington Post (August 2016), and even the original text of Judicial Watch reverses Bono's request. We are thus informed in multiple places that Bono's e-mail obtained no fruition, due to the indication the email recipient had no idea how to go about it ("Any ideas?" - "No Clue" -which is interpreted by WaPo as having no outcome since the queryists didn't know where to start), and an ensuing obfuscation that this obtained no result because there wasn't a livestream from or to the space station during U2's live performances, graduating to the ultimate ensuing idiocy, that Bono/U2 were requesting to broadcast their live performance to the space station and not vise versa, thereby achieving broadcast in space, -all substance the email text itself doesn't indicate.
For emphasis, the email text obtained by an FOI request by Judicial Watch was dated May 27th, 2009. NASA initiated the collaboration with U2 360 in 2009 by providing pre-recorded vignettes from ISS astronauts for U2's live broadcast throughout the U2 360 Tour in 2009 that were recorded in some instances as back and forth interviews between Bono and the astronauts, commemorated by NASA itself as a year's worth of collaboration on the matter on August 27th, 2010, -dating the commencement of the collaboration to August 2009. Then you have Bono's concert for the Clinton Foundation a mere two months later, where, unperturbed by say, the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell, Bono personally dedicated the song "A Man and A Woman" (its first live performance) to Chelsea's recent marriage.
(As an aside, it's not like Ghislaine's presence would've ever made Bono squeamish: -a long time personal friend of Epstein's, namely Larry Summers (because global financial rape and child rape are closer bedfellows than you might otherwise think, they fly together), sits on Bono's ONE Board of Directors (scroll to bottom). Obviously that's no problem. -Just as it's no problem that Bono's ONE and RED sponsor Bill Gates, (without whom neither would exist), also flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" four years after Epstein's felony conviction. No, yes, really. It wasn't a problem for him either. But then Bill Clinton flew on the "Lolita Express" twenty-six times, with and without his personal security.)
The sequence of dates indicates an extremely prompt result for Bono's request at the level of the best possible accommodation (coupled with immediate reciprocity to the Clinton Foundation), -plus a huge election stomp on Clinton's behalf by U2 in performance on not just one, but two livestreamed occasionsin the final heat of the 2016 election (-as mentioned, it beggars the imagination what sort of rewards Clinton would have had in store for the band had she won, via the Clinton Global Initiative/Clinton Foundation, especially in terms of the propsective win-win it could have provided for RED). The NASA astronaut appearances gave the U2 360 Tour profound artistic weight in a universal sense. It may not have been a live link, but it was about as close to a live-link as one could get, with back and forth conversations rehearsed for the moment, different astronauts and subtext for each appearance, and broadcast by U2 themselves if they took place live.
In short, (as in, you are forthwith returned to the interrupted thought stream), -individuals shouldn't, as a norm, be accosted on public record for a brief phrase like "NATO is under threat", -that incidentally "just happens" to indirectly service the propagandistic purposes their direct investments (Bono's in Facebook) when the investment has recently escalated to engaging in online censorship, by stating the opposite attributes for an entity (NATO) that has escalated to blanket online censorship of online free speech whilst avoiding the First Amendment via a an online platform being a private one, which is precisely what NATO is engaged in with online censorhip being performed by a private lobby group named the Altantic Council (named for NATO's official North Atlantic Council), a private lobby that operates on behalf of NATO's interests. Were Facebook a public utility, (-which Facebook isn't because the US military deliberately consigned the internet to select private ownership as soon as it was complete), this censorship could not take place, -and if NATO were directly involved instead of the task being allocated to a private lobby, the same charge would apply.
-So much for Bono's lauding his investment, Facebook, as a transformative platform that was an explosive vehicle of free speech. In other words, due to the systemic nature of Bono's public pronouncements (which has eclipsed his behaviour to become the very sum of his artistic live output at this point to favour one party in the US election, for not just 2016, but also 2020: -as U2's promissory leg of the Joshua Tree Tour 2019 appears to still be operating on the exact same video backscreen montage and policitized content (identity politic feminism hijack included) -that I described and analysed in 2017. If followed through in its entirety, Bono will still be inveighing Trump in equivocation with the Devil as Mac Phisto for every performance of "No Exit" onstage, which he'd been doing until the tour ended in Europe in November 2018. -Summarily, all this indicates the pattern of behaviour on Bono's part to be longstanding, and in slow steady escalation to the point where he is totally subsumed at present in existence as a political mouthpiece. Because of the larger background, Bono's phrase has precisely the implication above, and should stand accused of such. Stand alone, it was quite arguable it wasn't weighed with that implication and not worth the effort. But it's not stand alone, and the implication is there. It might be worth noting presently to what political employ Bono and U2 are putting the exact same set/montage.
Identifying the innate bias of the Facebook/Atlantic Council merger for online censorship at the time of announcement was as simple as glancing at the employee roster for DFR Labs (Atlantic Council's online arm), which included Elliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat (whose research is serviceable while being laughable, and was as of this month buried permanently with an ironclad verdict as being a product not of research, but the deliberate manufacture of misinformation in service to NATO's Ukraine/anti-Russian propaganda project when it came to the matter of Flight MH17, which was when and how Bellingcat rose to fame). Without Russia as the enemy, NATO has no operational mandate. In the interim, it has been flailing about in utter global destruction exceeding its mandate by trying to manufacture new fronts, -demonstrating in its destructive course that it literally has no reason to exist; -hence the re-manufacture and deliberate fabrication of its original mandate.
The head of DFRLabs was Ben Nimmo (now double tasking with Integrity International), who was dispatched with the usual Twitterverse's usual ease for falsely labelling a middle aged British citizen a Russian "agent of influence" or "bot". Such behaviour, basically spending your time falsely accusing individuals online and making the fulcrum of discrimination (last but not least) your failed, open sourced investigation, and failing miserably at it in the public domain (though twitter did censor the British citizen at Ben Nimmo's behest for possessing the wrong set of opinions), earns you the moniker from The Times of being "an expert on Russian disinformation". This month, no less than the Prime Minister of Malaysia shot Bellingcat et al's so called case for the downing of Flight MH17 out of the sky.
Laughably Facebook espouses such an entity as performing with the competence to censor the general public (glibly handing the matter of public censorship with the auspicious stated pretention of "protecting democracy", (-in fact, NATO), over to a private lobby), -when they already had a public track record of being proven failures at both research and censorship. The point could not be more brazen that the censorship regime being imposed on the general public is a form of weaponized and systemic bias aimed simultaneously at insulting our intelligence.
It should also be pointed out that as per the politicized performance agenda of the Joshua Tree Tour, Bono's political stances show no deviation. While subtle, the propagandistic function of servicing Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland as a laudable figure equates with lauding NATO at the point their private lobby arm becomes the censorship regime for his personal investment, when they have already been outed for overt propaganda, with both having their locus in Ukraine. Again, Bono was placing a placebo veneer of high morality on operations and personages whose patina couldn't even pass a smell test. Any moment he "just happened" to reference them at all, it performed at the highest level of public deception a public figure could ostensibly achieve. This time, when NATO's private lobby merged with his investment Facebook to perform as its online censorship arm (having just been bequeathed a staff of 50,000 strong), he espoused NATO as under threat.
My articles were an indication that Bono's public pronouncements and even his charitable operations were unpleasantly consistent in this regard, which leads us onto the next coincide-ment of the course events at the moment @U2gigs blocked me. This is concerning the matter of Bono's function as an existential philanthrowash when it came to the financial backbone of his lobby and charity, ONE and RED. The financial backbone of both these operations happens to be Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, to the tune of half the funding with respects to RED at the time. At the peak of the #NoDAPL protest, both men were direct investors in the DAPL pipeline to the tune of an excess of $8 billion dollars, but you never heard of it. You only heard about the beneficence of their financing of ONE and RED and all the great things ONE and RED were doing.
State suppression of the #NoDAPL protest was quite violent. The flashpoint highlight for this as living target, if you will, was one Sophia Wolansky, whose arm was shattered by a tear gas grenade shot by North Dakota police. While this was a matter of some dispute, the state police insured it would remain that way forever, by losing the evidence pertaining to her case (against them) when it was about to come to trial. This also happened precisely in tandem with Bono losing his voice.
Again, in terms of a loss of justice for a woman whose pain had just been rendered invisible to adjudication, Bono deserved to lose it in the sense that his receipt of Bill Gates' largesse sucessfully disappeared the DAPL investment connection so well that no one even cocked an eyebrow when Bill Gates more or less cherry picked North Dakota's next Governor, with the Bismarck Tribune blithely declaring (former Microsoft CEO) Doug Burgum had received no campaign funding related to the Dakota Access Pipeline, while simultaneously mentioning Bill Gates had individually donated $106,000 to Burgum's campaign, which was $6000 more than all the oil companies who contributed to his campaign combined, with $100,000 being the sum by which he eclipsed the campaign funding of his opponent. When the Bismarck Tribune made this statement, Gates Foundation was proprotionately invested in the DAPL to the tune of $1.6 billion based on Buffet's majority stake of Phillips 66 (at over $8 billion), who had a 25% stake in the pipeline, given Berkshire Hathway shares were and still are around 56% of Gates Foundation's portfolio, and Berkshire Hathaway is of course Buffett's holding company/investment firm.
Not only did Bono's RED sponsor get away with getting his man for North Dakota's governor, subsequently when brought up on charges by someone whose arm was nearly blown off, the same state lost the evidence, effectively deep sixing the case. In other words, business as usual in North Dakota under Gates' choice for governor. His asset was as protected as he'd have hoped, with the requisite necessary corruption taking place as per usual (which was also well documented).
