*edit, July 22, 2019 – It appears that they have not banned me. CN was attacked and readers having a problem commenting was one of the results of that attack. Now, There’s different ways of being attacked. How does a progressive org come around to believing its okay to carry articles by CIA assets? Graham Fuller may or may not be out. But there’s Michael Klare. Is he a CIA asset? He may as well be.
I couldn’t sleep due to humidity and so I got up and started playing around on my laptop. I wanted to find an article that I had bookmarked but never got around to properly preparing so that I could recall it via my browser’s search feature. I didn’t have the author’s name attached. I had used that article, by Joe Lauria, in my previous blog post about the ruination of Malala Yousafzai. The article is titled “Ban Ki-moon: Requiem for a UN ‘Yes Man’.” The information I wanted to use from the article was about Ban Ki-Moon. However, in re-reading (I’ve had the article bookmarked for a long time) the article, I was alarmed to find that Joe was praising the awful Dag Hammarskjöld. I read Yves Engler’s book, “Canada in Africa – 300 years of aid and exploitation,” some time after reading Joe’s article. Yves’s book reveals what a monster Dag was, contrary (as in ‘exactly’ opposite) to what Joe Lauria says about him. That jumped out at me. Joe is a smart cookie and, as far as I can tell, progressive. But that doesn’t mean that he’s perfect. Anyone can get things wrong. Is that all that this is? (I normally would email someone for an answer in a case like this, but the article is old and I doubt if Joe would appreciate it. It would look too much like I’m an enemy just trying to stir things up.) I don’t know but I don’t intend to just forget it either. That’s not what I do.
Because I was properly preparing my bookmark (adding in Joe’s name as the author), and had Consortium News in mind, I thought I’d have a look at Consortium News. That’s when I saw a live broadcast of some sort, in which Joe Lauria and Elizabeth Vos were hosting and interviewing a number of guests. After listening to the first guest talk about Jeffrey Epstein (and learning much), I had a glance down at the comments. (I was on my Pale Moon browser at this time.) I saw one about Aaron Maté and how good it was to hear from him. I too am a fan of Aaron. But when Aaron jumped to The Nation, I was not impressed. The Nation may be an old self-identified progressive medium, but it’s fake. A lot of those old, established progressive media are fake. There’s Mother Jones, Democracy Now!, Alternet and others. They all eventually revealed themselves. They were all among my first exposure to alternative media and I followed them for years. But I began to learn more, and no doubt mainly for that reason, and just through paying attention (because I have no specialized knowledge), I then caught them faking it. In the case of The Nation, they are all about getting their monster (from the Democratic Party) into the oval office. They are part of the huge, mushy, fake Left outside of the real Left. I visit those sites very, very seldom now, and that’s usually only if I’ve read something that links to them or refers to something on one of those websites.
Well, My comment wouldn’t get accepted. I then fired up my Epic browser and tried that. At first Epic redirected me to YouTube, where I had to log in to comment. I wondered whether that was the problem and so I logged on (although I don’t like YouTube and avoid Google as much as possible, as should all progressives.) I forget whether I was able to comment on YouTube, but that wasn’t what I was interested in doing at this point. I wanted to see whether I could comment on CN. I wondered why I was re-directed to YouTube by my Epic browser and started to play around with things and was able to get the video that I was watching on Pale Moon to play on the CN website with Epic and I got the same “Something went wrong, your comment could not be posted” message (which should have been two sentences but proper English is going the way of the Dodo.) In frustration (and because I thought that this might have something to do with the newness of the video show, noting that they were, in fact, having technical issues), I tried another CN article. I found “The Revelations of WikiLeaks: No. 4—The Haunting Case of a Belgian Child Killer and How WikiLeaks Helped Crack It”by Elizabeth Vos and tested the commenting feature by trying to post a comment. I got the same message about something going wrong. Others can comment though.
I’ve complained in the past (which ‘is’ past) about CN’s carrying of CIA asset Graham Fuller’s articles. I never saw anything on the CN website afterward that revealed what they thought of such complaints, which I wasn’t the only one making. Therefore, although I haven’t seen a Fuller article in some time, Is that because CN decided that their featuring of articles by CIA assets is wrong? Or is that only because they felt that they couldn’t justify it and didn’t want to put progressive readers off? And if the latter explanation is right, Did CN nevertheless take note of the ‘troublemakers’? When you don’t know – COMMUNICATE! – you don’t know. If this is CN banning me, then they did it super sneakily. If I’m banned, then it is well after they had decided to, when there was nothing (between us) going on.
Regarding the Elizabeth Vos article about the Belgian, Marc Dutroux, which I used to test whether I could comment, I haven’t yet read it. It looks interesting. And my comment was going to include, coincidentally, a link to an excerpt from Yves Engler’s book about Canada in Africa, in which he examines Dag Hammarskjöld’s role, alongside Belgium, Canada and the US, in the murder of anti-imperialist Patrice Lumumba. This is that link: https://app.box.com/s/bqs3fhb86t8u3vgbtb13qwoun7zzwmin