"yep, i'm one and the same, but kinda like Marshall Mathers has Eminem, i have Black Krishna. he's fun man, he says shit i couldn't say..."

heya p-chizzle,

nice pix with the chix dawg, good to hear from you. yep, i'm one and the same, but kinda like Marshall Mathers has Eminem, i have Black Krishna. he's fun man, he says shit i couldn't say, does shit i can't do, and has the flexibility of allowing for more independent perceptions and innovation in expression - he has no past. nobody's quite sure what he's up to or how seriously he takes it, they're just convinced he's convinced he's on to something, and if they want to find out what they check him out. if not, they don't, and if they accidentally are then they can ask not to - i'm not ubiquitous like Eminem, yet. or rather, he isn't. whatever man, this confusion and clarity experiment is more relaxing than being tied down to old mores and ideas that restrict our ability to act like we want, so in the process of doing what i want i'm attacking some of those (or rather he is) in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. to wit: if we do, we'll make a better world.

it's funny man, this new wave of fascism is taking on many strange forms. conflict is being induced into the population, the divide and conquor full-court-press is taking it's toll on our collective trust and sanity and enraging our ego's and vanity. our individuality is arrogant, fearful and selfish, and in being sold an "us against them" mentality we're being fractured into none-existence as a peaceful people. the fake "war on terror" will only certify our belief in large numbers of invisible and/or potential enemies, taking us into prolonged conflicts with various people we won't bother to understand because we refuse to believe that anyone who thinks like they do has anything reasonable to say. it's even happening here, where some conservatives think if you're a liberal then you have absolutely no sense at all: where's the faith in a rational dialectic between human beings? the same happens vice versa, but if i may say so myself, i'd like to make one thing absolutely clear: with the "liberal" views on protecting civil liberties and free speech - and all the groups on behalf of "people" supporting it, and the "conservative" views often inextricably linked to corporate or (these days) government influence or some combination therein, it can be successfully argued that conservatives both started it and want to further the perceived irrationality of the other side to protect their backers. to wit: liberals expose corporate corruption - that's just what we do, conservatives protect it - that's just what they do in arguing for the one-way-only rationality of globalization and other policies destructive to the majority of the world's people while extremely profitable for a few. therefore, if leading conservatives convince their conservative supporters that the liberal side isn't worth listening to, then they protect their corporate backers from exposure as corrupt and malicious institutions - preserving their growing control and influence. and, with the control of the media in the hands of corporations, the liberals don't get to expose their corruption nearly as often as they want to - and for the entire world's benefit, so the dissent allowed is of a very narrow perspective: either what's going on now is right, or it's kinda right. the people who say it's wrong, the people who criticise any of banking, weapons sales, capitalism, corporations or or the media by saying there is something fundamentally wrong with how their business operates are simply not allowed by those same businesses to air their views - many of which are damnably correct.

what's worse, unfortunately, is in the middle of this fake "right" and "left" paradigm we're actually getting our rights - the civil kind, and the kind that make for a civil society, taken away. it's not a "right/left" debate anyway, it's a right and wrong one, and the liberal side is most allied with groups of people with a passion for promoting the rights and freedoms of people. the conservative side has the ability to influence popular opinion, but nearly everyone who becomes an advocate working for little or no money is a liberal: conservatives are prep school kids drafted into high paying lobbying jobs at think tanks, and told what pro-business views to espouse for a high salary. while some liberals go on to do a great job and make lots of money, most started advocating for their position just because it was benefiting a large group of people directly - and not selfishly because they were handsomely paid for it. i'm not saying conservatives don't believe in what they're saying, but i'm saying most are drafted into their side because of the allure of money and thus a fealty to the system that produces it, while most liberals get drafted by a calling to serve humanity in some fashion. the conservatives may argue that they are safeguarding a healthy capitalist democracy, but in reality they are facilitating it's destruction by the very same groups they advocate for. the most sensible will suggest it's just the way the world works, so deal with it, and even dispute it if you must in order to help provide a check on it. the problem is they're still advocating for it and supporting the messages broadcast by it's mediums of propaganda dissemination, so in effect they are arguing against the people who are providing the very safeguards they suggest are necessary - while also avoiding what those safeguards are there for: the institutional corruption that needs to be addressed, not protected by it's tacit or active endorsment in the face of obvious increasing human suffering in many parts of the world. there needs to be an honest examination of the roles powerful institutions play in determing public policy and the justification of the same, and conservatives who in many cases used to be extremely distrustful of both government and corporations have now been drafted into justifying their actions using a bizarre paradigm of political and economic gibberish that deliberately ignores or diminshes serious issues of causality. avoiding causality conceals intent, evidence of human suffering shows intent is a possibility that should be investigated, and therefore the conservatives echoing the cries of causality as being irrelevant, unimportant or counter-factual ensure the perpetrators of crimes against humanity are protected. all the pieces of the puzzle are there, it's just where you stop using them to make your arguments. if you stop at the world as it is, then you see what options are on the table. if you understand that the world was an incredibly racist place fairly recently - and in many ways still is, and if you understand who has the power to quell or inflame that - i.e. the major institutions of the world that provide us with the base ideas and information to form opinions with, then you can understand it's roots and history and how they've affected public policy across the world. to wit: colonialism only really ended in the 1960's, and there were a few stragglers after that (notably south africa), and as soon as it ended the same institutions who were massively profiting off capitalism were still comprised of the same racist people, after all, colonialism had... just... ended. this includes the major powers of the world such as the United States and United Kingdom, and all the controllers of the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and other major financial and polical institutions that wielded a tremendous amount of power over the global marketplace they were designing independent of the input over much of the world, including maintaining control over money itself as an instrument of international trade in order to preserve and grow their colonial spoils. so, they broke out the old usuary stick which scholars from st. thomas aquinas to jesus christ to benjamin franklin have condemned, and proceeded to loan money to countries they had just finished stripping of much of their wealth at exorbitant interest rates on the condition that they spend that money on seleceted good and services - some good, some bad, that were supplied by their former colonizers at premium prices. the debts ran up and domestic industries were weakened by high taxes and inflation, then more loans were offered on the conditions that they "privatize" massive chunks of their economy - which is a code word for "sell to western interests", further enabling their servility. through the control of the media they've facilitated complex justifications for this policy, but at the end of the day it's just that simple: racists set the policies at the time with their overwhelmingly global institutional influence, and liberals and progressives have been battling against the evolution of those policies and their various disguises and advocates.

furthermore, and especially in the 20th and 21st Century, there was then and is now simply no way for any group of people to succeed in organizating major institutional change without the assistance of major financial institutions, or if those same institutions are against them. it's just too expensive to pay for the propaganda and other weapons, and if it's threatening to the big banks they'll simply choke off the money supply or use their ownership of other institutions to influence actions against the movement. governments especially are beholden to the loans they've taken from the big banks, so the big banks can ensure their investments make money by using their influence as a lender on government policy irrespective of the cost in human life. there are many players that exercise as much power and independence as they can within this framework, and their real and unique influence can certainly be felt by other institutions or people. some can even transcend it in remote ways if they have enough people or resources outside the control of the big banks like hugo chavez in venezuela, and succeed in forming their own destiny. but, that is a rarity since the majority of the world is in control of institutions that are either owned or in debt to the big banks, and even hugo chavez has to play along in many respects in order to trade internationally as all nations today are forced to. it's not like there aren't isolated pockets of freedom, it's just that we're all rats in the same maze, and the big banks can put doors or blocks wherever they want to by controlling the money supply. that can make acting in a manner inconsistent with their interests difficult or impossible, largely depending on your interests and their effectiveness at persuading others of their value. furthermore, if you act in a manner consistent with their interests - which primarily include making money off your actions, then you can have a remarkably easy time influencing your agenda with a remarkable amount of widespread support from a variety of institutions that profit off your actions, and will continue to be successful as long as those institutions also feed profits back to the big banks.

if the big banks didn't want hitler then we wouldn't have had hitler, and if the big banks didn't want bush then we wouldn't have bush. if the hitler administration tortures and murders thousands of people and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. if the bush administration tortures and murders thousands of people and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. if the hitler administration starts wars across europe and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. if the bush administration starts wars across the middle-east and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. if the hitler administration commits genocide against the jews and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. if the bush administration commits genocide against the arabs and the big banks make their money, then they have no problem with it. or, they would use their phenomenal institutional power and control to stop it as soon as possible: which is easily possible.

so, you have to ask yourself why, and why we're taught to avoid looking at certain areas of importance when it comes to understanding how the world works and why we're moving into a period of great conflict and increasing fascism. among the biggest reasons is the big banks want it: there's no other way the most powerful institutions in the world could allow such massive global economic changes and responses to the "war on terror" unless they wanted it, irrespective of the cost in human life and human rights. we're next, and the proof they don't care is in the rest of the world where 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day while many are engulfed in an endless cycle of wars, depression and repression. if the big banks didn't want it then they would make sure those people got money - even to recycle it back into the banking system, get into debt, and further the banks profits.

so, the motive is not just profit, it's control and power over people who could affect their profit, control and power. it's willful because they have the ability to will it, and while they could just help generate healthy economies around the world that enable them to massively profit off their increasing use as institutions and the parallel growth in the overall money supply, they're most concerned about maintaining their monopoly on money and control over information that would expose their corruption.

so, that's it man, the "war on terror" is all part of a fascist takeover of the world by a relatively small group of people, and instead of pointing fingers at each other like we're being taught to, all of us have to narrow our enemies list. we have to figure out that a handful of people are orchestrating the changes we see behind the scenes, or failing to use their phenomenal power for good on behalf of innocent people to stop the ones destroying the civil liberties in the bastion of freedom that was the united states of america. hey, it was never perfect, but even if it didn't always do the right things it was generally saying the right things, and wrote down some pretty good rules for the rest of the world to admire and possibly emulate. now it's going to say something else, like: "we torture now, get used to it", in order to scare us into supporting the changes because fighting against them or supporting those fighting against them or learning why people are opposed to them is too difficult or dangerous.

the u.s. or a united nations takeover of the same will play the police - or the military arm of the state, while behind the scenes the groups whose hegemony may be threatened by the subversive information spread on the internet causing people to realize what's happening will use that global police force to suppress dissent, and brand dissentors as traitors. it's already happening, so that's what we've got to figure out and fight against or everything else doesn't matter. there can be parallel pursuits, but unless the above is understood the the "think global, act local" philosophy of most activist groups can't be successfully implemented working in a world one doesn't understand.

so hey, i hope we get it... :)

cheers,
bk







Peace by proving the pieces exist...
BK

_____________________

...

Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy - http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/

Music - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm

...

P.S . Watch "Loose Change - 2nd Edition" on Google Video!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/