"This is not a conspiracy: if you just rub your eyes and look at the 20th Century again, it's just hidden reality..."

Thanks for checking my site man, respect.

I see issues differently, and that's why I'm in this game...

I think we get caught holding others to our own interpretation of what they should be, and that limits our understanding. This is a very normative fashionable-fascist view for a small world, and it's affecting everything as reflected by a shrinking common knowledge base about issues of the most importance - including neglible info about the rest of the world. Just check the message boards and see how little "trust" there is between many people over "facts" and "intentions", it's scary to see how policy can't be discussed when people seem to live in different worlds.

That's why I wanted you to watch the flick, and kick my ass with your arguments instead of ripping it's premise sight-unseen. The only way to start a debate is to agree you're debating about the same thing - e.g. a movie. If I'm wrong then I'll evolve my opinion, if you're wrong evolve yours.

In fact, I'd like to promote this idea widely...

The standards of proof for anything but MSM or official statements are incredibly high, way too high based on the evidence:

We've already seen the British and U.S. Government lie repeatedly over the last few years, and the media complicit in it. The Downing Street Memo. Etc. Etc.

So, I'm looking for a new standard for all of us: "Qui bono?"

"Who profits?"

When I saw people bravely swimming against the tide I got curious:

Why?

When I see them taking more crap then getting dap, again:

Why?

On the Bush Sr. stuff, the bottom line is people would rather attack it in principle than in practice - a curious strategy. The Right is being didactically fed a thinner gruel of information with false truisms and poor justifications, and it's backed up by the fact they're currently "winning" and terrorism is scary. This creates a mindset of paranoid insecurity - they aren't ever "comforted" by their facts on any level, and causes them to lash out in fear and anger over a premise instead of engaging in discussion about uncomfortable truths.

You'll see they avoid depth and make excuses: "How can you say Bush is bad? He hugged a 9*11 victim in front of 500 TV cameras! He almost cried! It was awesome!"

Then he stalled any investigation for 2 years despite begging and pleading 9*11 victims families. Etc. Etc.

On to my blogsite, I'm compiling a list of compelling clues to validate questions many refuse to say exist, and juxtaposing non-traditional ideas to suggest non-traditional revolutionary role models.

Do I need to provide more proof on my site? I think it's too wordy because I provide so much now, but I want to copy links, I want to narrate with images and ideas, and I want to copy some articles in their entirety - they change after they are initially published and a story is widely conformed to a new truth. I've confirmed it, others have historically, and while a justification is they're just correcting stuff they got wrong, in many cases it's excising crucial information that contradicts new lies.

On to your questions:


1. All I think I have to do in a forum like this is make an argument that something is reasonable: most of the questions I get like yours are things you can google yourself. Plus anyone who denies one set of proofs by claiming they don't achieve the aims of another isn't making much sense to me: I don't want to make stuff up to convince you, I just want to show you that people are acting really guilty by lying in clarifying this for us. There could've been a Chinese firecracker factory on the 30th floor: fine, let's prove it.

This the flick that I want everyone in the world to see at the moment:

Martial Law 9*11: Rise Of The Police State

*****archive.org*details*MartialLaw911

His evidence is exceptional, his conclusions are insane.

If it makes no sense, that's what makes it so compelling: he can't be right, it's too scary, but he's not wrong, so...


2. The media is "truthful", at least ideally, and I think if Fox News et all didn't LIE so much then the Left wouldn't have a problem with them. For years Liberals and Conservatives respected each other and debated issues on the same TV networks, and if they were discussing something they at least agreed on most of the FACTS. The media telling the most "truth" - and I mean TRUTH with the best arguments and evidence available, are the hard-core Lefties and Libertarians who can critically deconstruct the whole system with no vested interest in any part of it. Remember, the MSM suggested that for a few hundred terrorist we had to destroy 2 countries, and we're on our way to Iran next...


3. Bush fanatics are a bigger problem: they're backed up by the Bush's and the media. It's no problem to let neo-Nazi's march and spout off once in a while, nor Anarchists, nor anyone else hell-bent on remaking society in their image: as long as they're not in charge. The Bush Worshippers are dangerous: they are the tools of extremely powerful people and they're being sold to the world as the mainstream American view, whipping up anti-American sentiment for new wars. Now Rush Limbaugh and others are selling "G'itmo" shirts to support Guantanamo Bay... there are serious character issues here.


Finally, on the express purpose: I don't believe people should be so concerned with a specific audience, I think that's playing into the problem of labels and I give myself and others more credit than that. I want to express a diverse array of views while often speaking truth to power, and help provide a Reference Manual for the Left to help deconstruct the lies of the Right.

I think "truth" is opinion backed up by facts, and I don't think the spin doctors are allowing even the good people on the Right to make honest arguments: that would violate the strategy. I really HATE the people who are practicing this nasty form of propaganda that is leading to ***WARS***... no seriously, I can't see many worth hating more. When I can see the big picture, and how they're abusing their own followers, soldiers, 9*11 victims, and even their religious "base" who are judged lest on their loyalty to God than their loyalty to Bush. They're being taught to militantly defend Bush as a "Messiah" while he's screwing them out of jobs... and for that treachery alone:

I CAN'T SEE ANYONE MORE WORTHY OF HATE.

This really is a serious power play by America, in part because - as I heard author-activist Arundathi Roy say yesterday: "The dirty business of American history is now street talk."

The "truth" is out there, and it's not a bias: it's a check and balance on power. If we look at it we're saved, if not we're screwed: let's ride.

I've done my best to phrase and structure most of my stuff that way, and in my articulated-anger I hope to empower and educate. We've got a hell of a fight on our hands that most of us don't see, it's against the wishes of an elite group of banks, businesses, and military-intelligence, and they're dangerously consolidating power over everyone else. To see the early evidence, look at how 80% of the world is doing right now, and see if things have been steadily getting better with the overall increase in wealth.

This is not a conspiracy: if you just rub your eyes and look at the 20th Century again, it's just hidden reality...

Peace,
BK

P.S. You might enjoy this article, part of a series I did around the election:

2004-12-19

"Dear John Kerry: My Husband Still Beats Me, Do You Know A Good Lawyer? - Thanks, America"

********blackkrishna.blogspot******2004*12*dear-john-kerry-my-husband-still-beats.html#comments


P.P.S. Got some tunes too, complementary philosophy...

*****soundclick******artist*0*blackkrishna_music.htm


(...)


BONUS: Gentlemen,

Thanks for your thoughts, both movies address many of your specifics about CIA + JFK + BUSH and 9*11, I strongly suggest you give them a shot and we can discuss - your opinions will certainly evolve, and through our discussion so will mine.

I am often in the uncomfortable position of knowing information others don't, and to give you an idea of why I empathize: I used to be pro-war and fairly pro-Bush before I looked into it, again this was very early after 9*11, and I used to kick the ass of my old peacenik co-worker Mansoor simply because I was better at arguing.

He was right.

I checked for myself, and now I'm vested in passing on info that I think is compelling enough to be passed-on again. This is not propaganda: it can't be because it can't act that way, it doesn't have nearly enough corroborating pressure anywhere except on the margins of society - unlike peer pressure and the MSM. And don't worry about it's "Platonic-ideal potential" to be, just looking at it here and now with how you think, your natural cynicism will be enough of a check on your belief in it.

On power, it's always corrupted: as soon as you figured out you could do it, you sat on your little brother's head and farted.

So, crude as that analogy may be, it applies when one either doesn't know or doesn't care that they're screwing people. We've been trained to accept a staggering array of lies as exposed by a staggering array of people - who don't get much exposure. Even the "Liberal" media is a farce: where are the peace activists? Where are the calls to defend unions? Where are the environmental activists? Where are all the stories of the mass poverty and unemployment and disease domestically and worldwide as the crises we know they are?

We can see how clearly the media is not liberal, especially when there is an alternative media universe springing up made of ****ed-off liberals. So the paradigm is false, the people repeating it are liars, and we've got to realize that.

On rising within the system, I agree, one will always have to compromise their ideals. I just saw a movie where the early 5th place candidate for the Democratic Primary in 2000 was denied any media coverage, dragged yelling out of debates before he could speak, ignored by the other candidates, and had his poll numbers falsified to disqualify him among other things.

His problem? He vowed as President that he would cut military spending in half.

One of the things that would've been great if Kerry had won was people like me are his "base", and while the system would crush major reforms we would at least be given a few more shots at denting the armour and rallying the rest of the public. There is a bigger movement than the MSM reflects - just check the boards.

I also say Bush is much, much worse, and his cronies are the most secretive and corrupt in history. If you look into what his critics are saying and their detractors - and I mean the serious ones who write books, investigators, journalists, academics, socio-environmental professionals... experts are saying he's taking the world off a cliff and effectively hiding it through the corporate media. There are people who at least take traditional Presidential steps to help a few people out, but there's nobody on the bottom who's benefiting from his agenda save for a handful of Christians with bigger Churches and crappier jobs.

It may sound hard to believe, but again: if you actually look beyond how people FEEL about these guys and actually at what they're SAYING, the quality of criticism has been unfairly lumped into being a partisan view. If you learn something is bad you don't like it, if it's really bad you really don't like it, and that's what it is.

It's Fashionably Fascist to make apologies for Bush today, everyone on both sides does it, it's the cool "reasonable" position to take even in opposition, and make no mistake: it's deliberate strategy.

I've taken a look, I haven't seen him change, I haven't seen him stop torturing innocent muslims while saying "we've got to spread freedom", I haven't him be a "uniter, not a divider", I haven't seen more openness and honesty from the White House, I haven't seen him make the world better on one single metric...

So I won't do it.

Peace,
BK


(...)


BONUS: Cheers...

Thanks guys, and yes I'm a guy last I whizzed standing up, sometimes I prefer the ideas speak for themselves with no gender attached, we brand each other a bit too easily for my taste.

If you look at the whole structure behind the changes in society, you'll see they're all related, and working together in conscious and sub-conscious ways. You media anecdote is telling, and it doesn't just affect her White House Press Corpse lippiness: it affects all the media.

Can you imagine as a journalist bringing up fascinating 9*11 questions right now? Hard-core stuff reflecting the views of millions of people? An expose on how crappy the 9*11 families have been treated? A listing of even a half-dozen of the 600 "smoking guns" discovered by Alex Jones and others? A shout-out to the alternative media scene?

Good luck keeping your job.

And so on and so on...

It's a confluence of interests, and from studying it a lot the simplest answer best explains it:

"Qui bono?"

Who profits.

There is no Conservative ideology with big-government war-mongering, and old school guys who don't care about the establishment will say so themselves - with little press, but they're out there and I've heard them. They are much more Libertarian, much more isolationist, and much less inclined to make the truly "radical" changes in policy the Bush Administration is making: that's what they used to yell at Liberals for.

All one has to do is follow the money: banks make obscene fortunes off war since countries will go heavily in debt to win them; the oil companies are making record profits while telling us middle-east instability has to double our gas prices (?!) - so it's not a supply chain issue; corporations are almost free from anti-trust regulations so they're consolidating rapidly into bigger empires; the Religious Right is building Mega-Churches and crusading against domestic enemies for more power and money; the military gets to finally play around after 8 mostly boring years under Clinton, and the more they spend the bigger their budgets get; the CIA and FBI are being given new powers - including deputizing janitors and cable-installers into spying on us looking for signs of "terrorism"; Halliburton, Carlyle...

You know, I went to Cuba a while ago, and it startled me how the power-hungry people in a stagnant economy get off on their jobs: they wield power over each other, or they snitch. That's the only way to get ahead, and while most people didn't, there were enough to keep the rest living in fear of being ratted out.

If you ask me where we're heading? I say that's where.

People will soon be asked to report "crazy" people on message boards and in neighborhoods and workplaces who may be preaching anti-government rhetoric that could be "terrorism", and natural paranoia will split the country into an intellectual civil war between people who no longer speak the same language.

The media will consolidate further, public broadcasting is being killed now, people will get more paranoid over the half-truths they're told, and the government already positioning itself as the people's champ for 4 years will only get stronger as the people turn to it for help unable to trust anyone or anything else. This is classic fascism, and why would corporations want to destroy the free-market? Because that's the only way they can be beaten by a competitor, and that's the only way they can beat back the tide of information.

Make no mistake, just because the public is sold one thing doesn't mean that's really the case: these companies are globally diversified, and "free-trade" just means they can move their money easier. They rush 3rd World economies into slave-situations, demanding a country take out costly IMF loans to clean up for a foreign investment dog-and-pony show, and then compete to offer the weakest labor standards for manufacturing Western goods. There's a great movie called "Life and Debt" that obliterated my high school World Issues course, I highly recommend it to truly know how countries were screwed economically after colonial rule.

I can see it all happening now, and that's one reason I'm wading so deep into the margins of the debate: the views of PEOPLE have to be legitimized. Yes, real-honest-to-goodness-honest-people, even the ones who seem crazy. Like Gallileo did.

Much like discrimination throughout history against the will of the people, I see peer-discrimination based on protecting establishment ideas for their own sake, and not for anything else, as if the truth is impossible to deal with, comprehend, or too dangerous to speak of. In other countries - and even in the U.S., people have lived comfortably for centuries knowing their leaders were crooked: you just took charges against them seriously because you knew your history, and throughout history they've been crooked.

What happened to crooked politicians as a RULE, and not an exception?

All I look for are peers, persistance and proof. If I find these in any school of thought they're on to something, and even if I decide not to dip in I still respect their efforts and wish them luck: we're all working on a giant puzzle here.

With respect to the 9*11 cover-up: we don't know what the hell we're talking about. Seriously.

It hasn't been clearly explained, so the bulk of theories out there involve us filling in the blanks and making a reasonable story out of it. Some friends say: "Of course! The planes hit the buildings!"; some professional engineers say: "So?"

I don't know if you know how to pull something like this off, so any theories that suggest it's not possible to arrange cooperation within an incredibly hierarchical set of organizations seem pointless.

Besides, PEOPLE HAVE LEAKED, that's not the issue, that's the fuel that keeps the 9*11 Truth Movement engine running: dozens of people have come forward, and many others have claimed they were told to shut up.

Please... check the film.

There's no point in my alluding to it otherwise, and this is not opinion: this is what I watched. I looked at the people and what they were saying, and they seemed reasonable to me, especially given what I already know, and convinced me that there's a case to be made against the people who've been acting really guilty ever since.

The bottom line: people have looked into it.

Good people. Honest people.

People taking a lot of crap for their stance, but people who've convinced enough people of their merit to have me write this sentence.

Peace,
BK