Saturday, June 10, 2006

"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... :)


Peace by proving the pieces exist...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


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

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.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Am I Crazy? A very special conversation with our very special guest, everybody please give a nice round of applause to Corialanus...

[Ed note: Hey everybody, welcome to a conversation. That's right, a conversation between two old friends. One is a sensible conservative (in bold text for our guest of honour), the other is a radical liberal (normal text), on the pressing issues of the day. We could also go back and forth for days - and did before this exchange, but the back and forth in this email string goes twice, and we're discussing with the necessary forcefulness to enable a deep dialectic on two completely disparate points of view. Don't worry, we're still friends, and I'm even listening to this right now as I type this... :)

Chronicles 1 -


On 6/7/06, Black Krishna wrote:

my comments on your comments, sir. as a gentleman, and in honour of
you as my guest, i'll let you have the last word on this and then pimp
it... :-)

See - as I said to you I am happy to let you post this on your blog. The only problem I have with that is the point of this discussion wasnt to provide you with blog fodder. If thats all you do with it - use it as the blogging equivalent of a contrarian guest on a radio talk show then the point is lost. I dont really care who believes what about 9/11 so long as the counter-factual nonsense being peddled by Alex "they worship moloch, Dudes" jones et al remains harmless. i care much more about my friend BK wasting his time and talents.

> > i'm learning a lot about how you guys think and how to
> > deal with it on a larger scale.
> *Yah. its called reason, logic, scientific method, dispassionate
> analysis,
> common sense. those are all parts of it. You can deal with it as a
> good guy
> by doing it better or like a bad guy by using fallacies of logic to
> your
> rhetorical advantage. Im more comfortable with the good guy approach
> - but
> Im a purist.*

actually, since i have the bigger burden of proof i need more of those
tools than you do - and use them.

I am openly accusing you of playing tricks on yourself and using argumentational tricks whenever you discuss this topic. You are not being rigorous.

all of the analysis from those tools
can be measured as "reasonable" or not depending on what you consider
"normal" or not. i don't think this police state-crap is normal, nor
the billions of people starving, nor any of the policies that enforce a
continuation and expansion of the same or worsening destructive
policies. once that's established i use the same tools to confirm the
information i find as "reasonable" from my perspective, and since my
perspective is more beneficial for the world (and all the similar ones)
then i find it a more "reasonable" basis for making decisions.

See: its not reasonable. its preposterous nonsense. As I have demonstraded. more importantly its a distraction from the real sleaze that needs to be fought. There is a quote from Lou Dobbs of all people - whose anti-immigration / anti-free trade zealotry I quite strongly disagree with - that I nevertheless find fitting.

"Both political parties love to excite and enliven their so-called "bases" by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, school prayer and flag burning. Both the Republicans and Democrats raise these issues to distract and divert public attention from the pressing issues that affect our way of life and our nation's future."

I couldnt agree more. The use of a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage is disgraceful - and a disgraceful waste of government time. Its really relevant in two ways - first as something that is worthy of protesting, and second as a caution about wasting your resources.

> it's not like what i think is immediately believable,
> *Its completely unbelievable once an honest examination of the facts
> and
> evidence occurs.*

i don't see how or why i'd be dishonest about it, explain, please,

Sure. The dishonesty is against yourself. Youve created a persona that you now feel the need to live up to. You are invested in this argument. Thats why you can no longer assess the facts presented and weigh them honestly ( e.g. without bias). You went looking for a war to fight and you found one. Now you are a combatant instead of an analyst. a lawyer instead of a judge. ergo - dishonest.

doing me absolutely no good relative to the traditional "war is bad but
i don't care to find out all the reasons why it's happening" approach
taken by most.

If you really and truly cared about why its happening, you would do better fact checking and would have dismissed this conspiracy theory long ago. So you'll have to dig deep in your soul and find out what your real motivations are for continuing along this path.

like millions of others i've seen evidence and have my
doubts, and like thousands of others i continued investigating it until
now it's almost boring: there's no one else who could've engineered
9/11 other than the U.S. govt. that's it.

You think far too highly of government. Your false premise is that it was "engineered" at all. As others have demonstrated far more rigorously than I could, planes crashed into buildings and made them fall. there were no controlled demolitions. A plane did crash into the pentagon. there is a very real threat of terrorism from Wahabbi Islamist fascists. Now Im not going to get into opposing everything islam and championing everything western and spouting platitudes like "they hate us for our freedoms" when, really, they hate us for Israel and the wests geo-political strong arming vis-a-vis oil politics, and its willingness to back certain oppressive regimes all over the world. But they do hate us. and they do commit "terrorist" or, if you like "asymmetrical attacks against soft targets". September 11th was one of these. You choose to ignore this despite the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly points to it and against your hypothesis.

And, you continue to ignore the point that you refuse to defend your own constructive argument.

when you look at all the
evidence of what happened, you can clearly see that the "deus ex
machina" was too coincidental in too many areas to be a coincidence,
and nothing remotely like what a group of 19 arabs in the u.s. could

This is what I am talking about. This assertion is simply not true. Its all based on poking (pathetic, easily and continuously debunked) holes in the true story and then refusing to put together a strong constructive case. and absolutely refusing to apply the same rigorous analysis to your counter-case that you did to the official story. Which is to be expected - because if you did, your counter-case would crumble like dust and you could no longer egotistically count yourself among the elect few who "see the truth".

> and it's not like
> i haven't squandered my credibility by being "weird" in my own way.
> *I was going to say something about this earlier but deleted it. The
> problem
> with trumpeting guys like Alex Jones and theories like this is that
> you will
> lose your credibility on real issues. Its like when you wanted to
> talk about
> the internet neutrality issue and both J and I were ready to
> dismiss you,
> basically, because you are you. "BK believes and trumpets
> proposterous
> claims is the belief." You can say thats our problem, but you are
> gonna have
> a Boy who Cried Wolf problem at some point. And the Boy who Cried
> wolf was
> the one who got eaten by the wolf.*

it's an interesting cliche, but there's no reason for me to cry "wolf"
in this case. i can get attention, friends, love, money, girls,
whatever the hell i want with my charming and pretty ass, and i can
turn the "weird" on and off - i'm just reppin' it for all the mofo's
who're getting targeted in the increasingly paranoid wave of fascism
that's washing over us.

No. You are crying wolf. when a real problem exists people will not listen to you. Its about having a reputation for gullibility, not a charming smile.

i also refuse to believe we're not dealing
with "real issues", as the majority of mr. jones work is media analysis
of mainstream news, and like thousands of others he's just separating
the truth from the lies. he also does critiques based on checking
original source material, and even won a "Project Censored Award" for
his analysis of The Patriot Act - a soft-Left group, so they don't even
normally hang. but, when he's right he's right,

Jones is wrong about Bohemian Grove (well - he sensationizes it and refuses to look at it for what it actually is, thereby ignoring the actual problems with something like Bohemian Grove while pretending it is some kind of death cult), he is wrong about his whole world government thesis, he is wrong about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. He is sensationalistic and not rigorous.

and that's a hell of a
lot, so even guys like Greg Palast who work for the BBC and Guardian
still appear on his show and in his movies - among hundreds of other
respectable politicians, professors, professionals and activists.
basically i take the same approach: he's right on a tonne of stuff, but
he knows a crapload more, so i can't say i automatically agree with
everything he says - i don't do that with anybody. it's not crazy to
me when no one else can prove him wrong, i just don't believe something
until i've checked into it enough. not all the way, just enough, and
the same as anybody.

I checked into his sensationalistic claims and easily found out that he is a sensationalist who bends the facts to make them more exciting. Like a tabloid. Facts that dont suit his purpose are ignored.

> it's just that i never ran "tight cases", i never thought they were
> challenging enough for me to invest the time in debating at all, and
> while i know N said the rules have been set fairly for
> everyone
> and the game is to "win", i always thought i was smart enough to put
> it
> on the line like this: he sounds crazy, but it makes sense, and this
> gives us a new way to look at an old problem.
> *Im not in this to win. Im just looking at this objectively. I dont
> think I
> win if I win an argument but am actually wrong. As for
> sound
> crazy. you arent making sense. and this is a distraction from a focus
> on
> real problems. and Im not being flippant or mean there. Thats just my
> basic
> call on the facts. I dont, by the way, think you are crazy. I think
> you
> have motivations other than the truth, however. I think you went
> looking for
> purpose and a shot at a way to make a difference in life and this is
> where
> it led you. Retreating from it, therefore, contains an expensive
> internal
> cost for you in terms of life purpose / self image or whatever.
> Kinda
> like how Alex Jones's salary and sales depends on stringing together
> conspiracy theories and ignoring reasonable explanations that counter
> his
> worst case claims. As BK would say, "Who Profits"? ;-) *

oh, and i agree if i was punishing myself, but i'm not, and in fact i'm
among the happiest people in the world. basically knowing how the
world really works by looking behind the scenes at the money and power
has made it less confusing, and while they're trying to screw us (as
i'm sure you can agree with The Patriot Act, the ongoing War in Iraq,
New Orleans, underfunding of social services, tax-cuts for the rich,
and other negligent tragedies prove) i at least know that for a fact,
and can deal with it much easier than the media's "we don't know why
gas prices are high!" crap.

I am not impressed with this administration. They are incompetent and arrogant. That having been said, they did not plant controlled demolition charges in downtown offices buildings, and shoot a missile into the pentagon. I know why gas prices are high - increasing population, shrinking supply, geopolitical instability and most important exponentially increasing demand from china. It aint string pulling by freemasons, dude. And New Orleans was exactly the kind of government clusterfuck that speaks to what I am saying. Government is really not all that competent. New Orleans is the unmitigated, disgusting disaster that proves the point. And political will will NOT galvanise prior to a real crisis. Thats why they didnt have the proper orders and procedures in place to shoot down the passenger aircraft (and can you imagine being the guy to give THAT order. whoever had to do it would have likely hesitated until it was too late or tried to pass the buck) and that is why they never spent the millions necessary to reinforce the Levies in New Orleans. Once again - it aint the illuminati or Freemasons.

as for "sales'n'salary", i'm doing a tonne
for free whether it's used or not, and that's partly to prove my
consistent dedication to the issue.

Yes...which is too bad given that there are better ways for you to focus. If you want to fight for civil liberties go ahead. its a noble cause. But instead you are blogging about an already debunked conspiracy theory. it wont create policy change.

as for mr. jones, he encourages us
(his radio listeners and other audiences) to make as many copies of his
films as possible and distribute them - so obviously he's not money
grubbing, and posts an insane amount of content (yes it's content) on
his sites for free or cheap - 15 cents a day for everything he's ever
done over the last 10 years. i'm not saying he doesn't make money, but
if he really wanted to make money he'd do something that would allow
him access to the institutions (like Oprah!) that would promote him to
more people - and make him more money. like i said to momz, i can be
on CNN instead of the other brown dood and say "New Orleans is just
fine!", but i won't...

No. Alex Jones found his niche and he is making what money he can off it. He's smart to tell his people to spread the word and pass out his material - because that will lead people back to his radio show and keep him pure. But rest assured, he is in it for the pay cheque. But anyway - thats ad hominem too. Everyone has an interest, thats why we look at their arguments and analysis instead. and his are not rigorous.

> i refuse to believe in the validity of failed status quo arguments,
> *Really? Refusing to believe whats before your eyes is the mark of
> the
> zealot. Which failed status quo arguments? what about status quo
> arguments
> that have NOT failed...or that you thought had failed but now realise
> havent? *

i agree, it's Nazi'esque zealotry to believe that things are going well
when we all know otherwise,

No. Its nazi-esque zealotry to hate and kill jews and round up minorities and put them in gas chambers and brutality destroy them there. You really need to stop using that imagery. it is quite tasteless. But I know that you are trying to refer to german compacency. But its non-sequitur since instead of rounding up every muslim and making them wear a star, they are bending over backwards to intigrate them and distinguish islam from terrorist - even to the extent of ignoring the place that religion plays in this conflict.

and to trust those selling that message to
us when they've already proven to be liars.

I trust the evidence as set out by lots of indepent bloggers and lots and lots of engineers, surveyors and experts who are dealing with the issues in a serious and analytical way. You cant have it both ways. Either a tiny cabal did this and the post-disaster analysts are honest - or the conspiracy theory is vast and includes them all. thousands of them. and that is grossly untenable. Which again doesnt matter - because there is TONS of primary source evidence for september 11th. A plethora of eyewitness accounts and photos. There are websites that debunk all the claims made in the conspiracy videos. Ive watched your videos. I read your magazine. I reviewed the counterpoint analysis. it is clear which is more compelling. But I can only lead you to the water. I cant make you drink.

but, that's where we're at
because we're being victimized by an updated style of Nazi propaganda
and control, and we're facing what Joseph Goebbels wanted in a media
system: "an ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity".

Media is oversaturated with corporate ownership and yet still retains diversity of voice. The blogosphere has effectively broken the stranglehold in some ways. freedom of the press remains imperfect but it is better than anywhere else at any other time. We live in a free society where we can have this discussion and tons of corporate media employees can criticize the government at will. 24 hours a day. And they do. Including Jon Stewart and even Alex Jones. Thats a far cry from Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Communist China, much of the middle east including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and even Russia currently. Yet you think the U.S. government is the great bad guy. Its a trifle bizarre. You think the press doesnt cover your conspiracy theories because they are in league with the cabal. Whereas the real reason is that an examination of ther conspiracy theory by a rigorous journalist leaves that journalist with no story. The only story that does exist is the existence of the conspiracy theorist movement. and that, as you pointed out, has been reported on.

you just buy into the "official" critiques from the same sources that
lied - something that's insane on it's face.

No. There's lots of very unofficial critiques I reviewed. You ignore them. there are more out there as well - debunking the Bin Ladens ring hypothesis etc. But you argue a totology. anyone who doesnt agree with you is defined as official and therefore as a liar. again, dude, its cult logic.

In addition, you again fail to analyse your implicit premise. Either the entire government and the media is in on it or its just a small group of co-conspirators. You simply dont understand how government in a western democracy functions if you think the entire government is covering it up. You refuse to analyse all the work that has been done rigorously analyzing what happened on that day. Instead all you have is an ad hominem dismissal of a vaguely identified "them". I wont call your approach "insane". Its perfectly rational way to behave when you want to continue believing in a weak argument. I will call it "self serving."

it's also zealous to
suggest that the status quo approaches to problems are working - the
solutions aren't. to wit: attacking the middle-east was supposed to
make us safer... does anybody believe that we are? does anybody
believe in the media who sold us that? why wouldn't what they're
saying now prove to be a lie - as happens every 6 months or so?

I didnt say attacking the middle east made us safer. Its a different discussion. If you want to have that discussion we can. I thought we were talking about a false flag 9/11.

> and
> when it comes to the "War on Drugs/Terror/Illiteracy" etc., Chris
> Rock
> and Alex Jones
> *A comedian and a radio kook charlatan*

yeah, with nothing to prove, and looking for nothing but the truth:

I like Rock and I agree with lots of his funny poignant observations - but he is looking for a laugh and Jones is looking for an audience. *I* in this discussion am the one looking for nothing but the truth.

Rock's stuff is funny 'cause it's true, Jones' stuff is true because
it's heavily sourced - and that's why his fanbase has grown massively
over the 10 years he's been saying the same thing.

Alex Jones is P.T. Barnum. You are letting yourself become one of his one minute born suckers.

your mainstream
media sources (or "experts") work for Think Tanks backed by millions of
dollars of corporate and right-wing money in a carefully planned and
executed strategy to control opinion consistently across every media
source - you can SEE it. the same money owns the media that grants the
access and selects the talking heads, and then they only grant access
to talking heads that promote their corporate-fascist agenda - or
severely limiting the airtime of anyone who's not part of a Think Tank.
oh they'll let some criticism happen - c'mon, of course, they have to
so it's believable, but it's just a watered down version of "Fox"
across the board - and the rest of the world is laughing at us just
like we laugh at those who watch Fox News, albeit they're a little more
scared too.

Ad hominem again... Sure beats dealing with how easily the evidence of the false flag theory is debunked. Money IS a problem in media reporting - especially in the United States. You are right about that much though. Once again though, you see a brilliant masterminded plan led by shadowy forces. The world is a heck of a lot more complex than that.

why do you think such a massive alternative media putsch
happened? people were sick of being lied to.

I completely agree with this. We are just disagreeing about whether one particular scenario was a lie. You, on the other hand think everything they say is a lie because it comes from them. That isnt how it works. You also think all the rich folks at the top - in media, government and business - are a bunch of dancing, colluding friends. that isnt how it works either. But you never define which ones are or arent and to what degree. Which rich folks volunteered to die, and give up their office space, and generally get royally fucked over in pursuit of the master plan on september 11th? Which Pentagon Generals voted to attack their own HQ. Its really kind of hilarious.

oh - and i don't think
that "celebrities" are any lesser for their opinions than you and i,
and in fact, with their money, power and access to people with more of
the same, i'd say they have a better idea about this stuff than most.
so, if they still say it and risk the right-wing echo-chamber backlash,
it's added credibility to me...

I was pointing out that you only quote from easy populist sources. You need better sources of information. But any better sources of information are, by definition, compromised. right?

> have both said it best when they say these initiatives
> only exacerbate the problems - or create wholly new ones.
> *They certainly can. There are excellent arguments against the War on
> Terror
> and the War on Drugs that does not require you to trumpet easily
> disprovable
> claims with respect to controlled demolitions inside three office
> towers in
> downtown new york. *

there's a consistent pattern of screwing us that i'm identifying. you
don't see them as related, whereas i see that if you track back the
money far enough it's the same people making fortunes off misery.

I see lots of things as connected. None of them relate back to a false flag operation on september 11, 2001

> i don't
> trust the people who drove us into a ditch to drive us out (Jon
> Stewart),

Thats fine. I dont trust the people who read a road sign that says 50 miles to Nebraska and insist that its a government plot to make us all drive to saskatchewan instead, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that its actually 50 fucking miles to Nebraska.

> *Me neither. Thank goodness for term limits. And I would like to make
> a
> wager with you now, for any amount of money you would like - that
> George W.
> Bush leaves office on schedule. You seem to think he will declare
> martial
> law and stay in power. I bet that he doesnt. I will give you odds if
> you
> like. How about 10 to 1 odds. I will give you $1000 if you are right
> and you
> give me $100 when (I mean "if" I am right)*

nope, no dice. i can only prove what i can prove - that we're heading
for a fascist police state, not that we'll get there - that's what i'm
trying to help stop.

Heh. I didnt think it was worth $100 bucks to you. But you keep on moving that bar back. I love watching predictions recede like the tide.

whether Bush is in as dictator or not is
irrelevant - though certainly possible with his control of the Supreme
Court and Attorney General too,

Than put your money where your mouth is.

what's clearer to me is that someone of
his numerous obvious failings could not remain in power unless there's
a tonne of backers

Absolutely true. Just not really in exactly the way you mean it, I dont think. But yes, the idiot dauphin has many powerful backers.

such as the ones convincing you to argue with me.

Stop saying silly things like that. Oh...I forgot...YOU are the free thinking elect who sees the truth. I am the Sheeple. baaaaah. baaaaah. Feed me more grain, my corporate masters. baaaaaaah. Honestly, spare me.

they may not get all of you on the same page - we live in a world where
we're trained to bitch about bullshit, but they are succeeding in
convincing us to act "normal" in the face of his increasing
consolidation of power,

I already explained this. The fact that we are willing to embrace Acts like the Patriot Act or the Terrorism Act is because it doesnt affect the vast majority directly. There is absolutely nothing wrong, though, with protesting it. What is wrong is prefacing all your good arguments with the false flag 9/11 stuff.

and getting us to say "he's not that bad!" to
the people who've learned he's worse - until later we'll say "uh...
maybe you were right"

He's a twit. He just didnt orchestrate 9/11.

as happened to me recently with a friend over the
NSA spying on EVERYONE.

More power to them. All 200 of them. or 2000. Gotta make for busy days, all that spying on my email...

and, they're shielding him from criticism that
has any impact.

Really? he's at 35% or something right now. Because of overwhelming criticism...that is having an overwhelming impact. He remains in power because in a republic they have fixed election dates and because the republican controlled congress would not introduce impeachment legislation. Personally, I pray to GOD that he doesnt get impeached. Because if he does, then Cheney could run and win the next election with an incumbents advantage.

so, they may just put someone else in - competent or
not, it doesn't matter, and run the same Nazi propaganda on us again to
keep him in.

Thankfully we have you and Alex Jones to counteract the "Nazi Propaganda" of all those Columbia trained journalists at "corporate shill" magazines like Harpers. Whew.

and they'll use it to go to war too, like they're trying
now with Iran...

They are desperately seeking detente with Iran. As they did with North Korea. Yes - they would much prefer to go in with guns blazing and take out those regimes. But the reality that they are already dangerously overextended appears to be winning the day. But honestly, pretending that Iran isnt a threat...that the US is the bad guy and the Ayatollahs are the misunderstood victims...well: I think I'll stay on the side of the US. thanks.

> and from what i can tell they're driving us straight to
> hell...
> *Not really. thinks generally continue to improve if you look at most
> infant
> mortality and life expectancy graphs. But hey - they are certainly
> making
> some interesting policy choices. *

actually they're not, but i digress. and, all the other metrics are
worsening across the board too. in fact, i've dared people to name one
single thing the Bush Administration has done to improve the world, and
they can't.

Sorry: the Bush administration hasnt done one single thing to improve the world. if it did, it was done by the professional bureaucracy on the many files that dont command the presidents attention. I am talking about world metrics. Not Bush administration achievements.

they can say "we're gettin' em!" but not "we're safer!",
so they kind of cancel each other out, especially since one of the New
Nazi Name Brands was "The Long War". and... there's nothing else.

"Hey kids. lets play a game! When BK calls someone a Nazi we all get to drink!" "YAY"
Sorry - its getting thoroughly tiresome. But whatever - I'll let Warren Kinsella rage at you about how offensive it is. I'll just stick to calling it self serving hyperbole.

> i wrote this down last nite in my little silly notebook when i got
> home:
> "The soul of creativity is innovative juxtaposition. These days,
> "What
> does (x) have to do with (y)?" and/or "How could you believe in (x)
> and
> say (y) too?" and other variations are commonly cited, as if certain
> ideas and thoughts can't co-exist.
> *Certain things are non sequitur. Certain things to contradict,
> has
> always been thus.*

yeah, but the best non-sequiters become normal and appreciated anyway,
it's how culture evolves. so, to deny the free association of these
elements and a democratic appraisal - i.e. "the cream will rise to the
top - or those who want some will drink it" is a new danger. they're
turning the clock back on freedoms we've won, and denying the peaceful
co-existence of diverse ideas is just one tool...

the idea that the bush administration created 9/11 isnt a diverse idea. its an easily disprovable conspiracy thoery. it isnt attacked or ignored because it threatens people. Its attacked and ignored because its silly.

> This is a hallmark of neo-fascism:
> *And basic logic?? or is that against your creed?*

nope, it's just "in style". to wit: the Right is shitting on
celebrities like they have no right to say what they say and have no
business discussing politics. oh well, that's that then.

They shit on celebrities because they have high levels of attention and low levels of education on things they talk about - their analysis is generally that of the facile leftist. and people who know better get annoyed when they get a platform to talk about things that they demonstrably dont understand.

> a focused discouragement of "new" or "unique" thought that helps
> ensure
> that ideas that "power" says are not supposed to be linked are not;
> *You are confusing power with logic. logic is the antidote to
> unbridled
> dangerous power. its why reason is so much better than religion as a
> governing force. You are also starting to sound like a cult member.*

nope, i'm saying that there are institutions that have power over us
and control what we think. that's just a fact. i mean, where'd you
get your "facts" you so forcefully defend from?

Yes. I know. because you have never been in any of those institutions you dont understand how they work. So they seem like an alien force of super-geniuses. When really they are just bureaucrats at work. the idea that institutions exist that "control what we think" is not a "fact". its a bald assertion with no careful definition being given to "control what we think". We actually have the most free press and society in history throughout the current western world. (minusing some for post 9/11 cowardice in the US and triple plussing the internet)

> a
> reinforcement of you and the "other" who doesn't share your list of
> values - and thus can't be trusted;
> *This is what YOU are doing, not what "power" is doing. in logic it
> is also
> called an ad hominem attack.*

actually, "power" has proven to screw people for millenia, so i'm just
striking back against the empire.

OK, Luke Skywalker. You go get that deathstar...

the fact that you'd accuse me of an
"ad hominem attack" is evidence of how vigorously you'll defend power -
a historical concern - over people.

the fact that I would accuse you of an "ad hominem attack" is evidence only of you making repeated ad hominem attacks. Saying I defend power over people is, I dont know what, just a smear that doesnt really affect the argument. Power is made up of people. This isnt a treatise on power structures. its a discussion of a false flag operation being done on 9/11. and its clear that the conspiracy theorists are writing bunk. I have no personal investment in it being bunk. If someone did it, I would want to know. they just didnt do it.

the irony is killing me

To quote Inigo Montoya: "That word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

- and i'm
glad that's the only thing, while the criticism itself is making me
laugh. but, it is evidence of where it's going towards in your
"logical" paradigm of "stop attacking the government!", and that's
troubling - like they can't defend themselves.

You are putting words in my mouth. Ive criticised the government many times in this discussion. The logical fallacy you are doing there is called a "Straw Man".

it's been said (by Lord
Acton) that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely",
so out of the 200+ countries in the world, you tell me who comes closer
to absolute power than the U.S . govt - and absolute corruption...

And thats just argument by cliche. Lord Acton would need to be right. then its axiomatic that your conclusion is true.You know that there are actually academics that measure corruption, right? and that the U.S . is low on the list of corruption, while impoverished nations are often very high. All part of the conspiracy, right?

> and an active encouragement of
> peer-suppression of questions and creativity - THIS was the X-Files
> Generation???"
> *So your basic rebuttal to attacks on your evidence is that your
> conspiracy
> thinking is just creativity, and rebuttals to it are just the man
> trying to
> stifle your creativity? *

nope, i'm saying while we had a healthy appetite for "conspiracy" in
the past since we knew for sure that hundreds existed and each had our
own we could cite. this new trend of "shut up!" is disturbing. the
creativity comes in the questioning - you need to be creative with what
evidence you have when no one is asking the questions for you, and yet
when it comes to 9/11 people have been trained to get very, very, very,
very angry if you question it. so there, we've moved quite far from an
open and easygoing society, and frankly it's out of fear: if the 9/11
stuff was as flakey as saying a giant gorilla is going to attack the
Empire State Building, then people wouldn't flip. the problem is we
know The Bush Administration more evil than we know - we keep finding
more evil every week, so deep down we're scared to even examine it...

No. I wasnt scared. I examined it. Its poppycock. The funny part is that its more poppycock than it needs to be. its not enough for the theorists to say that CIA agents flew the planes. They have to be drone planes and there needs to be explosives in the buildings. Its not even a GOOD conspiracy theory. Its just the most recent one - and unlike the JFK assassination, it has the internet to fuel it.

> so yeah, that's why i had a smoke this morning with a white
> city-maintenance worker on his lunch on a park bench, and we scoped
> chicks while i spoke "cracka" (my man JK-47 and i were just goofin'
> on
> that stuff - he a white dood) which evolved into "bigga" over the 10
> minutes; that's why i'm flexing slang with people who know perfectly
> well that i don't need to use it - and flipping back and forth;
> that's
> why i love 50 Cent and G'n'R and Dido; that's why everybody got a
> nickname and i'm handing out hip hop street-cred like Scooby-Snacks;
> and that's why i can come up with some dope shit that makes the
> connections that we haven't seen yet or refuse to see:
> *Creativity is a virtue. It does not make the idea true however. As
> Ive said
> before in debates. Ideas are not fish. in order to be good fish needs
> to be
> new. old fish is very bad. new ideas are often terrible, and old
> ideas are
> often very good.*

yeah, but we have proof these "new" ideas suck - including
globalization - a "new" update on the "old" idea of colonialism.

I am very in favor of globalisation (depending on how you define it, I suppose) but thats an other discussion. Funny how all your responses throughout this whole thing spin what I said in a new direction while ignoring my substantive criticisma.

people don't want it,

Im the people. I want it.

they're concerns are ignored - along with their
own "new" ideas. old ideas like "thou shalt not kill" are still pretty
cool with me, and frankly i think your whole analogy smells like dead
fish: the age of the idea has nothing to do with how good it is, only
the quality of analysis and the results of it's implementation.

I agree. with this. and that was exactly my point. But the quality of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists analysis is very bad.

> EVERYONE says the world is getting worse,
> *No they dont. Alarmists do. Alarmists may be right though (although
> I dont
> think they are. all evidence is actually to the contrary if you look
> at
> things historically. but it depends on your metrics of measurement.
> Social
> conservatives and reactionary islamists certainly think the world is
> getting
> worse as we all practice our whorish hedonistic behavior. I disagree.
> judgement call, really)*

it's my experience that everyone thinks it's getting worse, they think
prices are going up, they're worried about the economy, the war, their
health, the people in power, terrorism... a tonne of stuff. just
because people are having "fun" doesn't mean in general that they are
pessimistic about the future, that's much of what i noticed - and why
people are tuning out of the news.

Again - not on the original topic. and Ive responded to it already.

> and yet most are not looking
> to anyone but the ones running it into the ground for an explanation
> -
> including all the critics and pundits and talking heads that never
> ever
> seem to get us off our asses to figure out a way to save it,
> *You sound like Lenin and his gang of idiots who decided to re-make
> the
> world with communism and no currency, then spent years fixing what
> they
> broke. *

okay. i didn't sound like that to me. if you think things aren't
broken now, then i guess you're doing fine. but, to ignore the
billions of people suffering around the world, you're also selfish,
lazy or crazy. and, to think we can't make a better world than this...
well, that's just sad.

I dont ignore them. All my education was about improving the world for them and so is my job. Heck most of my jobs. its just that solving problems of poverty is quite technical. it requires more work than taking to the street or blogging.

> despite
> the fact that there are literally millions of people with millions of
> solutions out there worth exploring - and thus millions of options
> for
> the corporate media to choose from. they don't, and they uniformly
> dismiss or ignore the efforts and interests of literally billions of
> people in desperate need of a change for the better - including
> millions here.
> *Those solutions need to work their way through the policy process
> and be
> rigorously analysed. Lots of them will turn out to be crap. Lots of
> them
> are based on a tired old us vs. them, rich vs. poor paradigm and are
> thoroughly unworkable. *

the policy processes don't allow it - e.g. why are their experts on
"war" but never experts on "peace" in the media? and for you to trust
the same people who happily approved brutally oppressive policies in
the past to all of a sudden approve "good" ones is insane - why the
hell does the world both love and hate the U.S.? they love what they
say and hate what they do - so your processes don't mean shit in
practice. it's also why the U.S. tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez (a
fact casually discussed in media around the world), because he said:
"FUCK YOUR PROCESSES!" lots of countries have tried to do it "right"
using your precious processes: take huge loans with massive interest
payments, then privatize everything you own and sell it cheaply to the
West - leaving your people owning nothing where they live and indebted
slaves to the infrastructure set up to rape them for their resources.
alternatives that truly benefit people and are quick and easy to
implement really exist (see: Chavez again), and they're only
unreasonable and subject to bureaucratic bullshit in a fascist model of
governance. ta-daa! don't defend it man, it's beneath you... ;)

You want to be a raving chavez leftist go right ahead. You are raising many different discussions at once. It still doesnt mean that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. The US has real enemies. You seem to think their grievances are real. and yet you need to make your bad guy even badder by turning him into Edward Norton in Fight Club in that scene with his boss where he beats himself bloody. You would be better served by focussing on policies rather than on conspiracy theories, my friend.

> screw that.
> i'm'a find dat elusive turd way homie... ;)
> *finding a new workable approach will certainly require a great deal
> more
> rigor than you are currently demonstrating. That is, if you actually
> want to
> make a real difference and improve people's lives. In the meantime,
> climb
> out of bed with the kooks and at least ally yourself with radical
> leftists
> who actually confront reality instead of trying to reinvent it to
> suit their
> purposes. *

it's easy to look at people trying to save the world and blame them for
not doing it successfully - i'm studying that right now. basically
it's a selfish lazy reflex, if you're not going to do something then
you may as well shit on the idea of doing anything at all -

Yeah world savers hate when guys like me point out that they are full of shit and too lazy to do the work to come up with real workable policy changes in a disciplined fashion.

No... if you want to change the world, you should set up thinktanks like the OECD and analyze ideas carefully and then spread the ones that work. You should have freedom of academic thought and all sorts of competing ideas. Kind of like we currently have. You should allow for peaceful but angry protest and lots of internet sites that call the president a bastard. thats important too. and I know you think theres a police state every time a black flag protestor gets put in the cool off tank, or when security forces post 9/11 get paranoid about cameras. But thats a distortion of whats really going on and the motivations for it. Nevertheless, Im glad people are there to keep an eye on it. I do believe civil liberties need to be constantly defended or we can lose them. so I have no problem with you keeping up the fight.

that makes
it seem like it's not worth it, and justifies inaction. this is all
"learned" behaviour that needs to be "unlearned", and it's mostly from
right-wing media sources who don't give a crap about most people and
their needs and promote the demonization of "welfare mothers", among
others who can't defend themselves easily in the media. i'm not
replacing it with a single point of view: the forces currently at work
are. to wit: there's a "safe" realm of criticism you respect that
you'll suggest i operate in, and everything else is crap.

Yes. The stuff that stands up to scrutiny. Thats the litmus test. nothing more or nothing less.

see? that's
my point, and i see the whole spectrum from jon stewart to alex jones
as working for the same thing: defending freedom. i like a "big tent"
party, they're telling you to shrink the tent, and to only respect
certain voices. that's how they're continuing to gain control over

You sure do love them pronouns. Pronouns are helpful. they keep your targets vague so you can expand or shrink your net as it suits the argument.

this is the acceptable stuff, this isn't - it's crazy! next
is "free speech zones" - this is a respectable place to speak freely,
this isn't -

it's crazy!, and on and on and on.

the force of your
denial is proof what they're doing is working,

How would I deny if they werent doing it? what would be the appropriate tone if it wasnt happening? If it wasnt happening how would I react to you saying it? You see, BK , the fact that you are calling me disagreeing with you "proof" of what you say they are doing is working demonstrates how stinkin' you've let your thinkin' become.

and that's just not cool
man. you'll confidently know both sides you've been given and trust
nothing else - as if there isn't more out there with the millions of
points of view that never see the light of day in the consistent
homogenous drone of the mass media. then they'll just weaken the
acceptable criticism to the point where it's meaningless - like now.
they need to keep a credible debate going that doesn't actually change
any of their plans or slow down their police state initiatives, so
thanks for letting me know how well they've succeeded...

You are not in favor of a credible debate. if you were you wouldnt believe that WTC7 was blown up by a false flag operation when evidence explaining the truth is at the websites I showed you and in many serious, non-biased reports and the truth is backed up by evidence of the full eye witness accounts of the day (unless the firemen are in on it too). You would have seen all the other pictures of Bib Laden wearing a ring. You would have seen the full confession tape where Bin Laden actually looks like Bin Laden rather than the few still shots that make him appear different. You would have seen the engineering reports explaining the falling pattern of the towers. You would have acknowledged that it is unlikely that a team of super puppet masters with a perfectly loyal special forces task force available to blow up downtown manhatten would also have managed to put some anthrax in a barn in Iraq.

In short - rather than focussing on real evidence and attacking the administration for its real crimes, you are interested in making Bush into a perfectly evil caricature and you will dismiss any evidence that does not conform to your pre-existing hypothesis. You are the one(s) suppressing "credible debate". You, my friend, have let yourself become a sheep to spoonfed disinformation. Not me.



Peace by playing with each other...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


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

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.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

SPECIAL RELEASE: Canadian 'Terror Plot' Begins To Unravel (Courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson at

[Ed note: The original has many links to supporting articles, so when they mention something here they don't explain it's a blog-translation issue: they wrote it with footnotes on different web pages, and if you click on them they'll explain the parallel anecdotes they cite. I highly recommend checking out the original link, they're a small team stuck in Austin, Texas, and rely heavily on mainstream media sources that slip up and reveal the truth before they all decide to parrot the official story. Nothing's conclusive yet, but the institutions in place have been ritually lying to us - as we all know for absolutely sure, so trusting them automatically when it comes to "facts" that will radically change the way we live is a mistake. Whether they're right or wrong I don't want to live in a Police State, and neither do you, so press our leaders in the government, the media, and big business to come up with alternate solutions, and ask why they don't ever make things better...]

Canadian 'Terror Plot' Begins To Unravel

Terrorists set up in sting operation, more on unfounded London raid

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | June 6 2006


Canadian 'Terror Plot' Begins To Unravel

Terrorists set up in sting operation, more on unfounded London raid

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | June 6 2006

Just as predicted, the frightening plot to bomb high profile targets in Toronto and the arrest of 17 alleged terror suspects has all the hallmarks of yet another invented nightmare intended to scare western populations into quelling their dissent of the empire.

From a manufactured scheme to attack the Library Tower in LA to the British government's hoax Canary Wharf and Ricin terror conspiracies - every major alert or mass arrest since 9/11 has proven to be a fraudulent movie script with no basis in reality.

As the credibility of Friday's London terror raid collapses, so does its counterpart in Canada with the news that the arrests were a sting operation in which, "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police itself delivered three tons of potential bomb-making material," to the alleged terrorists according to the Associated Press. As one blog points out, "I remember once when huge lots of Chinese food were ordered in someone else's name by bored teenagers as pranks. Do things like that still happen, I wonder, and could they happen with fertilizer, too?"

At the moment CSIS is saying very little and it appears that the bulk of the case is being built around stage prop photos of 'sample' bags of ammonium nitrate, guns and explosive timers (pictured below).

The Canadians are obviously taking a leaf out of the Russian textbook of government sponsored terror. After FSB (former KGB) agents were caught in the act of carrying out apartment block bombings in the late 1990's, the Russian state media relentlessly showcased a bag of hexogen explosive and cited it as proof that their official story stood up.

For those who are aware of the past activities of CSIS it's going to take more than a scary display of terrorist paraphernalia to validate the government's account of events.

In August 2003 26 Pakistani and South Asian men were arrested during a pre-dawn raid by the RCMP under Project Thread. The weight of the evidence behind the accusation that they were planning a dirty bomb attack on a nuclear facility comprised of the fact that the suspects often burned meals and one of them had a poster of airplane schematics on his wall. All allegations were dropped and the men were released, but not before a media juggernaut fearmongering campaign about how Canadians in major cities were not safe.

The story also coincides with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's Senate demand for more funding to fight terrorism. It is hardly beyond the pale to suggest that this is another imaginary nightmare dreamt up in order to scare Canadian politicians into rubber stamping a giant cash cow.

Authorities have been very keen to stress that the Internet, and the ability of the security services to intercept e mail and web browsing history, were key to the supposed plot. This kills two birds with one stone - firstly drag the name of the Internet through the mud and solidify calls for government regulation - and secondly chill Canadians into thinking that their every cyber action is being catalogued by the state.

Racial tension, always a boon for the police state, has increased with reports of Mosques in Toronto being attacked. Armed tactical units of the police are now patrolling Toronto streets (pictured above).

Meanwhile in London it emerges that 250 armed police who raided a family home in the Forest Gate area, shooting a man in the shoulder, first smashed their way into the suspect's neighbors house, brandishing machine guns and beating an innocent man with the gun butt as his wife and eight-month-old baby watched in horror.

However, as the supposed chemical weapons that justified the raid are now admitted to "not exist," the police are unapologetic in their actions, forcefully telling Brits that this is an aspect of the new world order that they must learn to accept.



Peace by pointing out important pieces...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


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

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.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

"Canada plot suspect accused of plan to behead PM", and a Rambles Thick'n'Chunky Logic Stew That Eats Like A Meal... (Fork you RCIAMP!!!)

[Ed note: Here it is - ta-daa! The "War on Terror" is wilin' out Snoop-Canadian Style, g'wan throw ya guns up (and maybe buy some), get patriotic as hell (or "Heil Harper!"), and get ready for a whole lot more bitchin'n'snitchin' ("life sucks! + get him!"), it's on now homie (the security sodomy), so get off yo' ass (or get sodomized) and get to seein' the lies (they seemed oddly prepared) with your own two eyes (don't trust your brain - it's been broken) and use your heart to guide you (who's asking questions and why?) to that light at the end of your tunnel-vision (wakey-wakey), worrrd...]

Oakee-dokee, now they're here and they want our freedoms.

Wait - didn't they come here for our freedoms?


Okay, that's not it.

Is it because we're blowing up the Middle-East?

Maybe... and who are our partners in war over there?

Oh... The United States Military, Intelligence, and Private Contractors?


The ones who disappear, detain and torture innocent Muslims for several years at a time with no trial or recourse at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Baghram Air Base, and reportedly hundreds of secret prisons around the World according to official European investigations? And shoot people in cold blood like in Haditha?

We didn't believe it until we saw the pictures - ugh.

Then again, we didn't believe the Holocaust either until we saw the pictures - ugh.

This is different though, as I think we tried to stop the Holocaust, as I recall, it's so hard to tell these days.

This time it appears we're causing a Holocaust, really one of several around the World, with depleted uranium dust poisoning the Middle-East, Asia, Europe, and soon if the wind hits, North America. Plus a few other socio-economic and/or war-torn disasters the major forces of the World like the United States, United Kingdom, United Nations, IMF and World Bank can never, ever, ever seem to improve. In fact, the majority even seem to progressively worsen over time.

Does anybody get fired?

Anyway, it's not a bad idea I guess, but really, if they wanted to try to destroy us then why wait until now? What's the big "meme" going around and where's any evidence that terrorism was building on a substantial grassroots level? That it has enough widespread support to constitute a real popular uprising threat? A few random shots of protestors on TV? How many of them STILL want to send their kids here - even after we've proven to be torturers and perverts (they were perfectly fine with our "freedoms" before we started getting rid of them) and hell-bent on ignoring their suffering?

How is it that everyone in the media is saying the exact same thing? And why's is that fact getting worse despite the fact it doesn't seem to make our situations any better? Shouldn't we have any parallel ideas on the table that don't involve using violence or taking away our rights - at least as a check on the excessive use of the former?

From what I can tell the West supports all the major dictatorships/fake democracies in the Middle-East anyway, either actively or tacitly, and has set up most of their intelligence agencies too like the ISI in Pakistan. I mean, they don't sanction any, and that's usually what they do with countries they don't like (e.g. Cuba, North Korea, formerly Iraq), so I guess they're alright with them. I mean, it's not like any of them is a major threat/trading partner like China or anything, so they're just letting chump tin-pot bad boys be boys I guess...

I mean, if they really wanted to stop or slow this down before, why didn't they just ask their friends in the military and intelligence establishments of all the Middle-Eastern dictatorships they support, nicely?

Or hell - get 'em to go get Osama on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan right the hell now, two countries the U.S. practically controls?

No, it seems that the origins of the allegedly biggest terrorist threat in the World today - Al-Qaeda, can be traced directly back to Osama Bin Laden and his old boy band "The Mujahideen", they had a few American hits against the old invading Soviet Union back in the day. They were also completely created by U.S. Intelligence, and have successfully reinvented themselves for over 25 years in a way that Simon Cowell's "Il Divo" shall never dream of. It was masterful work by the U.S., and created a powerful ally against the spread of Communism that eventually succeeded in defeating the threat and preserving their homeland, solidifying friendships that have lasted until this day.

Ahh, it's a beautiful story.

What - you think they lost Osama's phone number after that?

That's silly...

Then again, it happens...

I mean, TIME Magazine called Noam Chomsky "The Most Important Intellectual of the 20th Century", the Chicago Tribune said he's "the most often cited living author. Among intellectual luminaries of all eras, Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud", while the New York Times said he's "arguably the most important intellectual alive"...

And then they lost his phone number.

All of them.

Hey, s--t happens I guess...

And really, some of this s--t is too crazy to believe...

A police van carrying some of the 17 Canadian residents arrested on terrorism charges arrives at a heavily guarded courthouse in Brampton, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto, June 3, 2006. (Saul Porto/Reuters)

Yahoo! News

Canada plot suspect accused of plan to behead PM

By Cameron French and Jonathan Spicer 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

BRAMPTON, Ontario (Reuters) - One member of an alleged al Qaeda-inspired terror ring arrested in Canada last weekend faces the accusation that he sought to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

Good grief, isn't this going to brutally compromise his chances of a fair trial? Who's going to forget the Mad Beheading Muslim going after the PM? And how primitively scary is a friggin' beheading to simple happy Canucks anyway? And how bad does this story make the alleged 17 look anyway - and with our persistent collective ignorance about them furthered by a grotesquely silent media - the Muslim World in general? Why don't we know more about "people" we're at war with anyway? And, if they're "people" (as I still contend they are) then why aren't prominent members of their community allowed to speak up and work with the government and media to provide alternate solutions to this "terror" issue - and humanize themselves to a clearly frightened public that's prepared to demonize them?

The man, Steven Chand, 25, was among 15 members of the alleged ring who appeared in a heavily guarded courtroom northwest of Toronto on Tuesday to set dates for bail hearings.

Was it 15 or 17 members? The story hasn't been "Orwellized" yet, and made completely consistent throughout the mainstream media. When it is, those who've collected these early inconsistent stories will be incredibly valuable to "conspiracy theorists", because unbeknownst to those who have a violent disregard for them (and an artificially inflated one - THIS was the "X-Files Generation"?) that's where most of today's "conspiracy theory" comes from: the mainstream media. When something like Oklahoma, 9/11 or 7/7 first happens, the media accidentally reports stuff that the perpetrators (or: "the corporate fascists running things into the ground") don't want repeated - so it's not. But, it's still been said, written, or filmed by the same organizations that people have trusted, and that's what "conspiracy theorists" use to help build a narrative:

What did the press absolutely report that they'll no longer repeat or admit ever happened.

It's fascinating stuff, and for a guy in his boxers at a computer who lacks the massive CNN (CIA) budget and staff necessary to get firsthand reports from different countries, it's cool to find how the media formed a story and colluded on accepting certain facts (e.g. "19 arab hijackers" vs. "no arab names on the passenger lists") and how one knocks the other out. Then there's also the Right-Wing Media Fox Effect, which is exacerbated by the media's problem with talking about it's least favourite subject: itself. Basically the media doesn't criticize itself, and with the high concentration of Right-Wing media ownership - in Canada as well, when they decide to take a certain position (or flat-out lie) then other (liberal/lazy/neutral) major media outlets must either criticize them or follow suit - and they all fold like a house of cards. This is also furthered by a need for "access", and Harper's shot that he "wasn't going to talk to the national media anymore" was aimed at the CBC: one of the few institutions who's aired critical commentary of the "War on Terror" in awesome specials such as BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" (which shows the "War on Terror" is a lie) and thus may (have been) critical of his fascist intentions. So, the CBC's gotta cave too or they'll lose "access" to the governments employees - despite the fact they work for the people who should have a right to say "no you can't refuse to talk to the media!" Then again, Bush held like a press conference a year in his first few, and Harper has been determinedly Bush-like in his arrogance and secrecy so far... hey, I guess you gotta go with what works.

"There's an allegation apparently that my client personally indicated that he wanted to behead the prime minister of Canada," Chand's lawyer, Gary Batasar, told reporters.

How come they haven't told us how they found out yet?

Canadian police arrested 17 Muslim men, five of whom are under the age of 18, on Friday and Saturday in Canada's largest counterterrorism operation. Several of them are charged with plotting bombings in major Canadian cities and training militants.

Wow, they're moving incredibly fast here - dehumanizing children! It seems to me that if a bunch of white teens were kidnapped by a cult of evil then there would be some sympathy for them and a desire to rescue and rehabilitate their precious impressionable young minds. Hey, I'm just sayin'...

Police said more arrests are possible.

Great, just come and get us then, you've already justified it.

Batasar said his client faces several serious charges and said he was concerned that intense media interest in the details of the case in Canada and the United States could jeopardize Chand's chances of a fair trial.

And this point will only be emphasized by his lawyer as the media gorges on this beautiful Feast of Fear... mmm... they even showed pictures of all the houses of the suspects in Sunday's "The Toronto Star" newspaper (June 4, 2006), which was impressively evil: where did they get them so quickly? Why did they publish them at all? What relevance did it have to the story other than to violate potentially innocent individuals rights and privacy? Where did they get the cojones to try and scare the hell out of us like that - pointing out dozens of homes that look just like ours are where the "terrorists" live?

According to a synopsis of charges that Batasar said he saw, members of the group are alleged to have considered plans to take hostages and to attack the Canadian parliament in Ottawa with the aim of trying to force the government to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. building in Toronto and power grids were also alleged targets, he said.

Great, the U.S. hates New York so they blew it up. The current fascist incarnation of the Canadian government hates the CBC, so they'll try to blow them up - or screw them in some fashion, maybe by making them pay for and deal with extra "security". It makes no sense for Muslim's to go after the CBC - they've been among the fairest in their coverage of the plight of Muslim's, including airing a documentary called "Being Osama" about 6 different "Osama's" living in Montreal and how their lives were changed after 9/11. And by the way, with all the information they're giving out - and it's a hell of a lot, they even had big tables full of crap to show the TV cameras, why won't they reveal the details of these alleged "plans" the "terrorists" had? Are we supposed to waste our time recalling every action movie and video game we've ever seen and make up our own story about how they were going to attack us? Please, I'm too tired.

The accused men, wearing white T-shirts and gray sweat pants, were escorted into the small courtroom a few at a time, shackled together. About 20 family members sat together while more than two dozen others, mostly media, crammed inside.

Snipers were on the roofs of nearby buildings and police cradled guns beside an airport-style security checkpoint.

Ahh, the signs of a police state. You know, I remember getting off a plane in Greece or Egypt I think it was, and being freaked out at the military/police (it's getting harder to tell them apart here too) holding machine guns just a few feet away from me. Well, the Liberals had an entire fully produced and vetted campaign ad saying Harper will have "soldiers on our streets", and here they are...


Defense lawyers succeeded in having bail hearings postponed, saying they had yet to gain adequate access to their clients or the evidence.

Most of the accused will appear June 12 to set bail hearing dates, while one, Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, will appear at a bail hearing July 4.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police say the men took delivery of three tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be mixed with fuel oil to produce a powerful explosive.

That's more fertilizer than was used to build the 1995 Oklahoma City bomb that killed 168 people.

Okay, you have to see "9/11: The Road to Tyranny" for an alternate view of the Oklahoma stuff - HEAVILY backed up by precious TV FOOTAGE, mmm, so tasty. You can find it at -

Other charges include trying to build bombs and training, or being trained, as terrorists, court documents say. Police haven't named the five youths in the group, or listed charges against them.

Canadian newspapers said the men had a training camp in a wooded area north of Toronto.

The accused were being held in solitary confinement and were barred from seeing family members or praying as a group. Lawyers also complained they were unable to see their clients without an armed guard within earshot.

Ahh great, so if the suspects say to their very own lawyer: "Wait! I'm being framed! The RCMP drove up with 3 tonnes of ammonium nitrate and then arrested us! This is completely insane - I'm innocent - I just want to live!" then they will get the crap kicked out of them. Or get killed in one of those handy "he's so crazy he just killed himself!" stories. I mean hell - according to MSNBC, "Moussaoui" was wearing a stun-belt on the stand when he completely changed his testimony to reflect the government's version of the story (Google to see the video clip of the reporter saying it and then quickly moving on), and denying "Canadians" (I think they still are) the right to due legal process and attorney-client privilege only spells out a baaad future - they may even take it away from the rest of us! :0

"There's no possible way that you can either counsel your client, nor is it possible in these circumstances to receive clear unambiguous instruction from your client," said Arif Raza, lawyer for Saad Khalid, 19.

See? I guess like the Geneva Conventions, "innocent until proven guilty" can now be considered... quaint.

The men and youths arrested were all Canadian citizens or Canadian residents. Seven worshiped at the same mosque and two were already in jail on weapons charges.

Really? Canadians are doing this to CANADIANS??? Violating the basic legal rights of CANADIANS??? But... but... I thought Canadians were "nice"!

Muslims make up some 2 percent of Canada's population of 33 million, and leaders fear the arrests will spark attacks on their community.

Okay, now you have to ask: what are they doing about it? And, is it making the situation better or worse? Here's a hint: they're going to rant and rave about "security" and "terror" until they're blue in the face and we're ready to blow chunks, and then "if they hate, then let 'em hate, and watch the money pile up" baby, as we spend all our taxes on it...

* Email Story
* IM Story
* Discuss
* Printable View



BONUS: It's about New York Times to tell the Truth...

FYI - It's bubbling, it's true, and even the mainstream press is starting to bite.

The problem isn't that everyone is biased, it's that everyone is brainwashed, including the editors and reporters, into considering everything except what they (are supposed to) know as crap. Their willful ignorance is rewarded as the loudest debunker kicks the meekest questioner's ass, and the "group-think" sets in - or what you're supposed to say if you're part of that group. Just like in any job when your boss asks implicitly or explicitly to compromise your values ( e.g. in sales I was asked to lie), at some point you start feeling awful about it, and press for changes. The other thing is that if they know about the forces behind all the changes we see, they know that it's not like they can just take their side: the plan is for absolute and total control, it's moving that way now ( i.e. the "police state"), and if you're a "conservative" neo-conned into supporting fascists on a random "gay marriage ban" or the endless "war on terror", they have no respect for you anyway. They will choke-off the economy, take your job, your family, and everything else you have and turn you into a slave. That's the plan, and if you really look at the world today it's already happened to about half the population - we're just next on the list. People know this and react in a variety of ways, so please keep an eye out, your favourite artists in particular are trying really, really, really hard to tell you something... :)

Vij for Vendetta / The New York Times

500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11

New York Times | June 4, 2006


CHICAGO, June 4 — In the ballroom foyer of the Embassy Suites Hotel, the two-day International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth was off to a rollicking start.

In Salon Four, there was a presentation under way on the attack in Oklahoma City, while in the room next door, the splintered factions of the movement were asked — for sake of unity — to seek a common goal.

In the foyer, there were stick-pins for sale ("More gin, less Rummy"), and in the lecture halls discussions of the melting point of steel. "It's all documented," people said. Or: "The mass media is mass deception." Or, as strangers from the Internet shook hands: "Great to meet you. Love the work."

Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International. It was, in tone, half trade show, half political convention. There were talks on the Reichstag fire and the sinking of the Battleship Maine as precedents for 9/11. There were speeches by the lawyer for James Earl Ray, who claimed that a military conspiracy killed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and by a former operative for the British secret service, MI5.

"We feel at this point we've done a lot of solid research, but the American public still is not informed," said Michael Berger, press director for, which sponsored the event. "We had to come up with a disciplined approach to get it out."

Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers — a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.

The former owner of a recycling plant outside St. Louis, Mr. Berger joined the movement when he grew skeptical of why the 9/11 Commission had failed, to his sense of sufficiency, to answer how the building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed like a ton of bricks. It was his "9/11 trigger," the incident that drew him in, he said. For others, it might be the fact that the air-defense network did not prevent the attacks that day, or the appearance of thousands of "puts" — or short-sell bids — on the nation's airline stocks. (The 9/11 Commission found the sales innocuous.)

Such "red flags," as they are sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band. Mr. Jones, a syndicated radio host, is known for his larynx-tearing screeds against corruption — fiery, almost preacherly, addresses in which he sweats, balls his fists and often swerves from quoting Roman history to using foul language in a single breath.

- INFOWARS NOTE: Alex never uses profanity in speeches. In this particular instance he was quoting LBJ in which Johnson demands that the USS Liberty be sunk. -

At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading "History of Government Sponsored Terrorism," Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft "stood down" on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a "controlled demolition" caused by pre-set bombs.

According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration "to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible."

The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers ( that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down.

Like a prior generation of skeptics — those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack — the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.

"Elvis and Area 51 — we're sort of lumped together," said Harlan Dietrich, a recent college graduate from Austin, Tex. "It's attack the messenger, not the message every time."

To get the message out, the movement has gone beyond bumper stickers and "Kumbaya" into political action.

There is a plan, Mr. Berger said, to create a fund to support candidates on a 9/11 platform. There is a plan to create a network of college campus groups. There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch "Loose Change," the seminal movement DVD.

It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.

Beneath the weekend's screenings and symposiums on geopolitics and mass-hypnotic trance lies a tradition of questioning concentrated power, both in public and in private hands, said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."

As for the 9/11 Truthers, they were confident enough that their theories made sense that on Friday, as a kickoff to the conference, they met in Daley Plaza for a rally (though some called it Dealey Plaza). They marched up Kinzle Street to the local affiliate of NBC where, at the plate glass windows, they chanted, "Talking heads tell lies," as the news was being read.

"I hope you don't end up dead somewhere," a companion said to a participant, hours earlier as he dropped him at the Loop. "Don't worry," the participant said. "There's too many of us for that."



P.S. Oh yeah, you guys are all hella smart and into that thar "economic science" oxymoron, that's cool, and it probably plays better at parties than the truth, but it sure isn't helping us get out of the crushing debts and inflation that will topple our economy. So, if you want to learn the "truth" (I know, I know, maybe you don't, it's okay...) check out the flick below, it's one of the subjects in the song I just sent too...

* The Money Masters *

(The U.S. Federal Reserve is privately owned by a few big banks - which are in turn owned by a few old money families. Seriously. For example, it's in the phonebook's "white" pages and not the "blue" government pages. The whole central banking system is also one big lie, and the control and abuse of the planet's resources is managed by it. The history of fractional reserve banking is a joke in allowing banks to lie without recourse, and manipulate markets to engineer a crisis whenever they want. There's probably no gold left in Fort Knox either - they stopped doing their legally mandated audits years ago. Plus, plus, plus...)

Peace by piece by peace by piece by peace by piece...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


BONUS: Sneak Preview...

"Black Krishna and TyGuy Productions Present - The Most Dangerous Man In The World Is A Brown Guy With A Backpack - Coming Soon to a Theatre of War For Your Mind Near You!"

(intro hard voice)


It's on...


(flip it up)

C'mon everybody!

It's time to celebrate!

We know what's going on!

And we ain't gonna let it last long!


C'mon! C'mon! C'mon!

Black Krishna and TyGuy Productions!

C'mon! C'mon!


I see Nazi's, Nazi's, everywhere,
Don't tell me what to wear,
Or how to wear my hair,
If you don't dare share?
Or dare to stare and care?
Then you a Nazi,
You probably wasn't even aware!
I mean, how did you buy?
The Big Scare?
When most of the Middle-East?
Wants to send their kids here?
For a college education,
And a lifestyle change,
Coming back with blue jeans,
And a brand new Range,
So outta the way!
Ya slowin' down the fast lane of progress,
Keep gettin' it messed,
We'll never get to the projects!
My messianic complex,
Is coming back with context,
Now it's no contest,
I'm calm, they' stressed...


Nazi's, Nazi's, everywhere,
Don't tell me what to wear,
Or how to wear my hair,
If you don't dare share?
Or dare to stare and care?
Then you a Nazi,
You probably wasn't even aware!

(x2) - 1:25


I'll never say that again...


Then again...

Why not?

See, back in the day,
When they thought, we had a way,
They spent all day,
Pointing us, the other way,
And everyone who say,
That it's gotta be this way,
Has gotta be dismayed,
When they see who's gettin' paid,
Who's lurkin' in the shade,
As "The Money Masters" made,
A killing off the Nazi's'n'Commies'n'weapons grade,
Now we steppin' to the plate with weapons home-made,
And we reppin' it for freedom in every single way,
And every single day we gotta say we're okay,
A mother-sister-father-brother tryin' to make it their way...

You's a mother-sister-father-brother tryin' to make it yo' way...


Nazi's, Nazi's, everywhere,
Don't tell me what to wear,
Or how to wear my hair,
If you don't dare share?
Or dare to stare and care?
Then you a Nazi,
You probably wasn't even aware!

(x2) - 2:29







I can see you over there/over here,
I overhear convos,
I overhear-fear, like-you-facin' Shaq and Alonzo,
My flow is so Gonzo,
Like Hunter S. Thom, so fear is what I loath,
I'd rather know who bombed those,
Towers, that fell, so easily,
While the government, acted, so sleazily,
What's keepin' it real to me,
Is having the guts to admit,
That since they still torture people,
We're in some deep...
Sit down and relax,
The media's got the facts,
But they're ignoring the Left,
Like they've been ignoring the Blacks,
That's why I write my little raps,
To help us out of Iraq,
So don't act like a Nazi,
'Cause they're already back...


Nazi's, Nazi's, everywhere,
Don't tell me what to wear,
Or how to wear my hair,
If you don't dare share?
Or dare to stare and care?
Then you a Nazi,
You probably wasn't even aware!

(x2) - 3:44

- Black Krishna, "Nazi's, Nazi's, Everywhere"


BONUS: Vive la France du Canada... / Canadian Press

Quebec to beef up privacy law to hamper U.S. surveillance

ROSS MAROWITS / Canadian Press | June 6 2006

MONTREAL -- Quebec plans to follow the lead of several other provinces in attempting to protect its residents from the eyes of the U.S. government.

Quebec's 12-year-old law governing the release of personal information by private businesses is to be enhanced, partly in reaction to the USA Patriot Act enacted to give broader FBI access to records held by U.S. firms.

The proposals, which are expected to be passed this month, would require public bodies and private companies to ensure the information they send outside the province is as secure as it is in Quebec, said Richard Parent, a government official.

"You will have to ask the question with each contract: 'Will there be a violation of privacy and should there be a transmission of that information?' " he said in an interview.

Companies would face increased fines -- although the amount has not yet been made public -- and would have to disclose publicly if a breach occurs. Individuals could also ask Quebec's information commissioner to investigate suspected breaches of the law.

Quebec's legal change comes in the wake of reports that the U.S. National Security Agency co-opted telecommunications companies to track millions of phone calls and store them in what may be the largest database in the world.

It has left many Canadians concerned about how their personal information would be used by Americans. For example, could it affect their ability to enter the United States or obtain health insurance, or could they be added to no-fly-lists?

Nobody knows, in part because the Patriot Act -- passed following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- expressly prevents companies from disclosing whether they have passed along the information.

British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia have also taken steps to block companies operating out of their provinces from transferring private information.

B.C.'s law was in reaction to a complaint to its privacy commissioner by its public-sector union. It fought the outsourcing of the province's medicare and pharmacare plans to a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. company. The union feared the U.S. government would compel the disclosure of personal information.

MNA Stéphane Bédard, Parti Québécois critic for justice and access to information, said the province's plan does not go far enough in creating a disincentive for companies to release information. He called for maximum fines to be increased from the current threshold of $20,000 to $3-million for businesses and to $300,000 for individuals.

"The best way to combat this is to create a bottleneck," he said. "How you create a blockage is by giving teeth by sometimes allowing verifications when public organizations give contracts to companies that are American subsidiaries."

Both Mr. Parent, the Quebec official and Mr. Bédard acknowledged that Quebec's changes offer only limited protection. The FBI or another police force armed with a subpoena or warrant could still gain access to the information. And Canada has its own security laws that can be used to secure personal details.

Banks, whose credit card data management is typically conducted outside Canada, have informed their customers they could be subject to Patriot Act requests.