35 years after discovering “Blue Lines” (1991), seeing @MassiveAttackUK live again @forestnational was pure joy. “Unfinished Sympathy” and Shara Nelson’s voice hooked me from day one. Some music never loses its power #MassiveAttack #Concert #Brussels

Autre passage du texte qui résume parfaitement la cruelle réalité de la région : " Si les Palestiniens déposaient les armes, la paix régnerait. Il pourrait y avoir une solution à deux États ; il pourrait même y avoir une solution à un seul État ; peu importe. Si les Palestiniens cessaient simplement de tuer des Juifs et de construire une culture qui célèbre le meurtre gratuit et le martyr comme valeurs suprêmes, une société diversifiée, tolérante et prospère pourrait voir le jour entre le Jourdain et la mer Méditerranée. Cela aurait pu être le cas il y a quatre-vingts ans. Mais si les Israéliens déposaient les armes, ce serait un génocide comme l'a montré le 7 octobre 2023. Et pour quiconque a suivi l'actualité, cela a été vrai tous les autres jours depuis la fondation de l'État d'Israël."

À la suite des nombreuses réactions suscitées par ce post 👇, notamment de la part de @Bernie1495, @gabin64230, @DoctHuxley, @SkeptikalMindBE ou encore @GLBegotique, je souhaite préciser ma pensée afin de dissiper tout malentendu. Je ne conteste évidemment pas le droit de manifester. Il est constitutionnel et essentiel en démocratie. Ce que je conteste, c’est l’usage de l’intimidation, de la violence ou de la pression physique dans la rue pour s’opposer à une décision prise par une majorité parlementaire démocratiquement élue. L’opposition a toute sa place: au Parlement, dans le débat public, dans les médias, dans les recours prévus par l’État de droit et, bien sûr, dans des manifestations pacifiques. Mais empêcher des services de secours d’intervenir, intimider des élus ou chercher à faire plier une majorité par la force de la rue, ce n’est pas la démocratie: c’est sa négation.

"He was completely exonerated... the case is CLOSED!' Michael Jackson's defense attorney Thomas Mesereau says "the timing is suspicious" of the new Michael Jackson documentary. Watch more 👇 📺 youtu.be/2jVJwJpqlxM @piersmorgan

A for-profit TV show starring the worst of tabloid journalism (Dimond, Bashir), moral panic promoters (Katz), a failed DA (the obsessed Zonen and his wife Palanker, a PROSECUTION WITNESS), and the husband of one of Epstein's madams (Amen) is only a companion to toilet paper.

There is only ONE true story about Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial and everything leading up to it. Let me lay it out for you from start to finish. It begins in June 2000. Gavin Arvizo is in the hospital fighting cancer. Michael Jackson hears about him and calls him. Just a call to lift a sick child’s spirits. They meet in person for the first time in August 2000. By October, Michael gives the family a van. They visit Neverland, but MJ isn’t even there. After that? Almost no contact for two full years. Then, in September 2002, Martin Bashir asks for the Arvizos to be part of his documentary. That’s what brings them back in. February 2003: Living with Michael Jackson airs, deceptively edited to paint a monster. Michael and his team are forced into defense mode against the fallout. From that moment on? All hell breaks loose. And eventually, you get the 2005 trial. But here’s what the media won’t tell you: The Arvizos’ allegations are some of the weakest, most absurd claims to ever enter a courtroom as a criminal case. Before we even get to the absurdities, remember: The Arvizos had a HISTORY of false sex abuse allegations. The JC Penney extortion case. Allegations against David Arvizo. They also targeted celebrities like Chris Tucker, George Lopez, and Verne Watson for money and favors. Their timeline makes absolutely no sense. The prosecution changed it multiple times after realizing their original story was indefensible. Most people still believe MJ molested Gavin BEFORE the Bashir interview. But Gavin himself alleged it started AFTER the documentary aired. Let that sink in. Why would Michael Jackson,knowing he was under investigation, with the entire world on high alert, decide to start abusing a child at that exact moment? That bullshit actually made it into a courtroom. And the “false imprisonment” claim? Complete fiction. The Arvizos went to multiple places during their so-called imprisonment. Not once did they try to call for help. Even worse: After “escaping” twice, with the help of MJ’s own employees, they WILLINGLY went back to Neverland. Make it make sense. Please. The “abduction” story fell apart when Chris Tucker testified: The Arvizos asked HIM to take them to Florida. They went willingly. Michael didn’t organize any of it. Tom Mesereau proved the mom and siblings were all in on it. His cross-examination of Star Arvizo was a masterpiece. Mesereau handed Star a straight adult magazine, dated AFTER the last alleged abuse. “Is this the magazine Mr. Jackson showed you?” Star said yes. Game over. The media was NOT reporting on the courtroom massacre, most outlets buried it. Mesereau picked apart EVERY single “witness.” MJ’s 2003 indictment had almost nothing to do with the Arvizos or the prosecution’s garbage case. The ONLY reason the grand jury indicted Michael Jackson was a decade of sensationalism, folklore, and misinformation. They were already convinced he paid hush money in the 90s, so they assumed guilt, even though the legal settlement never prevented the Chandler’s from pursuing a criminal trial. During cross-examination, Mesereau asked Janet Arvizo: “Did you start investigating Michael through lawyers as early as January 1, 2000, before you even met him?” Janet never gave a clear answer. She rambled. The judge ordered her to respond. Even then? No direct answer. Mesereau told the court he didn’t believe he’d received an answer, but moved on. The judge let it go. But the question lingers: Why couldn’t she answer? If she had nothing to hide, why not just say yes or no? What was the motive? Some say: she wanted money, gifts, favors, or false allegations. Others say: poor wording in a report. But here’s what’s undeniable: Janet Arvizo had credibility issues from day one. And one thing was always at the center of this family’s efforts: money.

🚨 60 Minutes Australia blasted Michael Jackson’s movie for “glaring omissions,” then interviewed the Cascio family without mentioning the massive fake song fraud case tied to them. @DamienShields has the receipts.

Michael Jackson has become the first artist ever to debut a new Billboard Hot 100 hit in six different decades. From "Got to Be There" in 1972 to "Chicago" in 2026, the King of Pop's chart legacy continues to make history.

Lady Gaza perd ses nerfs et, fidèle à ses méthodes, lance sa meute après avoir bloqué sa cible. 1) Je maintiens qu'il n'y a pas de presse libre à Gaza (sinon on aurait vu des reportages sur les otages ou bien sur les manifestations contre le Hamas). Et je maintiens que nombre de "journalistes" sur place sont en réalité des combattants de l'organisation terroriste. 2) Je maintiens qu'il n'y a AUCUNE différence à faire entre les victimes du conflit (un mort = un mort), mais qu'il y a une différence essentielle entre ceux qui les tuent. D'un côté, le Hamas qui vise les civils, viole les femmes et étrangle les enfants. De l'autre, une armée régulière dont les exactions sont sanctionnées et dont les (éventuels) crimes de guerre seront tous documentés par une presse libre.

“𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐉 𝐍𝐞𝐭𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐱 𝐝𝐨𝐜?” That’s a question I keep getting, and one I’m happy to keep answering. @michaeljackson was a flawed person, but not a child predator. Yes, he was childish, stubborn, and passive aggressive. Yes, he went overboard with plastic surgery, got addicted to painkillers, and developed bad spending habits. But the @netflix doc blatantly asks you in the trailer: “Guilty or innocent? You decide.” The danger of selective framing is that audiences stop asking “Is this proven?” and start asking “How did this make me feel?” The evidence suggests Michael Jackson was innocent. The financial incentives are too large. The contradictions in the accusers’ stories are too many. And if he were a powerful child predator, why was he persecuted instead of protected? Because “he got away with it” gets more attention than “he was acquitted.” But you don’t have to take my word for it. The receipts are below, so you can make up your own mind. 1. Square One (the 1993 allegations): youtu.be/ZxNDb2PVcoM 2. Missing footage from “Living with Michael Jackson” (the 2005 allegations): youtube.com/watch?v=bpaIWbfq… 3. The FBI’s 13-year investigation, released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009: vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jack… 4. Contradictions from Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and the Cascios. x.com/ejdaelite/status/20611…

🔴🇫🇷⚡️ | L’eurodéputée LFI Rima Hassan attaque le journaliste Jean Quatremer après la diffusion d’une fresque dénonçant les nouvelles formes d’antisémitisme. Réalisée par l’artiste italien Alexsandro Palombo, l’œuvre représente « Hitler avec un keffieh » et est visible dans plusieurs quartiers de Milan. « J’ai hâte, on va s’amuser », a répondu le journaliste de Libération. Réalisée à Milan, cette fresque visait à dénoncer les différentes formes contemporaines d’antisémitisme, qu’elles proviennent de l’extrême droite, de l’extrême gauche ou de certains milieux radicalisés se réclamant de l’antisionisme. L’œuvre entendait alerter sur les dérives de certains discours où la haine des Juifs se dissimule derrière un vocabulaire politique plus acceptable. Pour se défendre, Rima Hassan a choisi une autre voie : accuser le mouvement sioniste d’avoir entretenu des liens privilégiés avec l’Allemagne nazie. À l’appui de cette affirmation, elle invoque l’Accord Haavara de 1933. Or cet accord était un mécanisme limité et pragmatique permettant à environ 53 000 Juifs allemands de fuir l’Allemagne nazie vers la Palestine avec une partie de leurs biens. Il ne s’agissait ni d’une alliance idéologique ni d’un partenariat politique avec le régime hitlérien, mais d’une tentative de sauvetage dans un contexte où la plupart des pays du monde refusaient d’accueillir les réfugiés juifs. Pour l’immense majorité des Juifs d’Europe, aucune porte de sortie n’existait. En déduire que le sionisme aurait été un partenaire privilégié du régime nazi constitue une lecture régulièrement reprise par les milieux complotistes et antisémites cherchant à inverser l’histoire de la Shoah. Plus troublant encore, Rima Hassan semble suggérer que la Shoah relèverait exclusivement d’une histoire européenne étrangère aux Palestiniens. Pourtant, de nombreux travaux historiques documentent la collaboration entre le Grand Mufti de Jérusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, et l’Allemagne nazie. Reçu à Berlin par Hitler en 1941, il participa activement à la propagande antisémite du Reich et soutint le projet d’extermination des Juifs. Des ouvrages de référence comme Croissant fertile et croix gammée de Martin Cüppers et Klaus-Michael Mallmann ont largement documenté ces liens. 📌Encore une fois, Rima Hassan recycle ainsi une vieille rhétorique consistant à associer les juifs qu’elle qualifie de « sioniste » aux nazis. Une accusation aussi spectaculaire qu’historiquement fausse. 🔗 Sources : Déclarations publiques de Rima Hassan, Jean Quatremer, œuvre d’Alexsandro Palombo, Accord Haavara (1933), Martin Cüppers & Klaus-Michael Mallmann. #RimaHassan #JeanQuatremer #Antisémitisme #Shoah #Israel

Being a Micheal Jackson fan is exhausting only because the world keeps trying to argue with history. Every few years someone pops up claiming GREATEST OR BREAKING HIS RECORDS, MJ fans just watch the same cycle repeat comparisons, debates, and then silence when reality catches up again.✌

You have to ask yourself why they try so hard to discredit an acquittal they worked so hard to misrepresent. Excerpt from “The Nation in the Mirror” Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone. Iss. 977/978 New York: "Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse. The early witnesses against Jackson included a bodyguard who missed court because he was in custody facing charges stemming from a series of armed robberies, including holding up a Jack in the Box at gunpoint; a former Neverland maid who’d stolen a sketch Jackson had made of Elvis Presley and sold it to the tabloids for thirty grand; another former employee who’d lost a wrongful-termination suit against Jackson and had to pay part of a $1.4 million settlement as a result. And then there was the very key figure in the case, the accuser’s mother, who had to plead the Fifth Amendment on the first day of her testimony to avoid cross-examination on a welfare-fraud allegation – a witness so completely full of sh—t that Sneddon’s own assistants cringed openly throughout most of her five days of testimony. In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles. Sneddon’s hard-on for Jackson was a faith-based vengeance grab every bit as blind and desperate as George Bush’s “case” against Saddam Hussein. If Ahmad Chalabi had ever been to Neverland, Sneddon would have put him on the stand too. His case was bullsh—t. California vs. Jackson turned out to be basically a tale of a family of low-rent grifters trying to lay a criminal-molestation charge on a rich celebrity as a prelude to a civil suit." redblackghost.wordpress.com/… @clairlemon @Zigmanfreud @JuliaBerkowitz1 @RuckerJael #michaeljackson

When will the media do their job and investigate the real architect behind the false allegations against Jackson?

RT @mirthhh_: How it started (2019) How it's going (2026)

The most valuable 15 minutes you can spend learning history. Truth Matters ‼️

The 2005 Jackson trial was a travesty and a blemish on the American judicial system, yet you wouldn't realise this from most media reports. The timeline alone would make Homer Simpson blush with embarrassment. But now, some dubious characters are working behind the scenes to dismiss a jury verdict based on the full evidence and cross-examination, instead opting to cherry-pick evidence in the court of public opinion. Here, the late Linda Deutsch (former AP News legal correspondent) discusses the debacle of the 2005 trial. @clairlemon @Zigmanfreud @JuliaBerkowitz1 @RuckerJael #MIchaeljackson

This is The Most Disturbing Michael Jackson Story You Never Heard! It was my absolute pleasure to host @DamienShields from the @FakingMJpodcast to tell you the truth about the latest Michael Jackson accusers. Why does the media leave this out when talking about these allegations? You can probably guess why. Link in 🧵!

His name is Michael Jackson - Zozo People defend him because they researched the actual truth not the verbatim bullet points from tabloids you stated below which are false. Therefore you have zero knowledge. youtu.be/ZxNDb2PVcoM?si=SudY…

THREAD: A highlight of the many factual errors, deliberate omissions, timeline falsities and other material mistakes made in @AndrewHammel1's piece published by @Quillette. Where fact-checking was clearly not of interest—but sourcing from Dimond and Gutierrez somehow made sense.