Same Game, Different Name (NAU)

[RMX]

Excerpts from a report title:  2006 Report to Leaders
(Bolded sections are my own emphasis)

…We are achieving measurable progress on a number of security issues affecting our three countries. Canada, Mexico, and the United States have strengthened relationships in the areas of preparedness, law enforcement, and the screening of travelers and cargo. Furthermore, the three countries have improved processing times at border crossings while maintaining tight security. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are making progress to standardize fingerprint-based biometric technology. Moreover, the three countries are cooperating in conducting trials and reviewing the compatibility of their biometric traveler systems…

Looking ahead, we are considering other avenues to strengthen the SPP, such as regular meetings of SPP Coordinators to provide direction, track progress, and discuss new initiatives, and the use of an ongoing tracking process to help us stay current on the status of initiatives. We will also look at ways to strengthen cooperation among the Working Groups in order to facilitate the accomplishment of our common goals. 
Working Groups is title-capped by the writer of the text suggesting either a proper name of an organization or for emphasis on the concept of working groups.

 … At the one-year anniversary meeting of the SPP in Cancun, you asked us to examine ways to strengthen the SPP to ensure its continuity and success. To that end, we are pleased to inform you that on June 15, Ministers officially launched the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that you announced in Cancun. Our three governments recognize that private sector involvement is key to enhancing North America's competitive position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and growth. As such, the creation of the NACC provides a voice and a formal role for the private sector. The regular meetings between Ministers, senior officials, and the NACC, complemented by ongoing consultations with other interested stakeholders, will help ensure that the SPP remains a cornerstone of North American cooperation.

Other Interested stakeholders?  WTF

Signed by yours truly:

Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security   
Carlos Abascal
Secretario de Gobernación   
Stockwell Day
Minister of Public Safety
Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Commerce   Sergio García de Alba
Secretario de Economía   Maxime Bernier
Minister of Industry
Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State   Luis Ernesto Derbez
Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores   Peter G. MacKay
Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
 
Submitted to the leaders (No! The rulers/ruling elite represented to the masses by our leaders Bush, Fox, etc) of the US, Mexico, Canada, and possibly interested stakeholders. 

And nothing of the CFR proposals has come to fruition?  This is a government website, it ends with .gov.  Think about it!

http://spp.gov/2006_report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=2006_report_to_leaders

Link to homepage:  http://www.spp.gov/

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity (not for all) among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing. (database)

This trilateral initiative   (trademarked) is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.  (Really, where?)

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health. (Really, when? I hope yall haven't missed all the news on the Food and Drug Administrat-ors, fucking up US food supplies, then they kill you twice with the meds)

Looking forward, President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox have identified emergency management; influenza pandemics, including avian influenza; energy security; and safe and secure gateways (border security and facilitation) as key priorities for the SPP. The Leaders also announced the creation of North American Competitiveness Council to fully incorporate the private sector into the SPP process.  (Sounds fully fascist to me!)

At best, this can be just your government alone.  At worst...

[RMX]

Lou Dobbs Speaks on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Xs8bposCc

[RMX]

CNN on SPP:  Implementation on track, no transparency...the amero?? When will it stop?  For some the question still is what is it and when will it start??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U


Slams the SPP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernLnhIR8uI

Its a conspiracy, it aint gonna happen, okay...whatever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vda1KRF75M

[RMX]

"Being done by a few people, at the very top, for the investment class..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

[RMX]

New American Union Currency: "Like a Theif in the Night"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FOCMxMA_48

[RMX]

http://www.aim.org/special_report/5247_0_8_0_C/

North American Union "Conspiracy" Exposed
By Cliff Kincaid  |  February 19, 2007

A top Democratic Party foreign policy specialist said on Friday that a "very small group" of conservatives is unfairly accusing him of being at the center of a "vast conspiracy" to implement the idea of a "North American Union" by "stealth." He called the charges "absurd."
 
But Robert Pastor, (CFR FUCKER) a former official of the Carter Administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (CNAS), made the remarks at an all-day February 16 conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system. The holding of the conference was itself evidence that a comprehensive process is underway to merge the economies, and perhaps the social and political systems, of the three countries.

Pastor said that he favors a "North American Community," not a formal union of the three countries, and several speakers at the conference ridiculed the idea of protecting America's borders and suggested that American citizenship was an outmoded concept.

Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Pastor told AIM that he favors a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty and a national biometric identity card for the purpose of controlling the movement of people in and out of the U.S.
So the "conspiracy" is now very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it.

Media Cover-Up

Accuracy in Media attended the conference in order to produce this report and shed light on a process that is being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.

AIM has previously documented that Pastor's campaign for a North American Community has received precious little attention from the major media, except for the notable case of CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has called it "utterly mad." In fact, a survey of news coverage discloses that several high-profile mentions of the concept of a North American economic, social or political entity have come from Pastor himself, such as a Newsweek International article that he wrote.

The conference, conducted in cooperation with the American Society of International Law, an organization affiliated with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, was held at the American University Washington College of Law. A large number of speakers came from American University.

Overruling the U.S. Supreme Court

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

Under the latter concept, according to Laura Spitz of the University of Colorado Law School, North Americans might be able to enjoy "new rights" essential to "human flourishing" such as gay marriage. She argues in one paper that U.S. economic integration with Canada will make it nearly impossible for the United States not to recognize same-sex marriage so long as it is lawful in Canada.   

Pastor himself talked about new institutions, such as a "permanent tribunal" on trade issues, but emphasized that such ideas "take time" and have to "take root." He advised conference participants to "think about the horizon," in terms of what is possible, over the course of 5, 10 or even 20 years from now.

Conservative concerns about Pastor's agenda were not assuaged by conference literature disclosing that the CNAS is sponsoring an event in May in which students participate in a model "North American Parliament." The concept suggests creation of a regional body to supersede the U.S. Government itself.

Such talk does indeed raise the specter of a North American Union similar to the currently functioning European Union, a political and economic entity of 27 European states that includes a European Parliament and a European Court of Justice. The EU has been charged with usurping the sovereignty of member states and moving European nations in a left-wing direction on matters such as acceptance of abortion and gay rights and abolition of the death penalty. 

Indeed, the academic literature distributed to conference participants alluded to how the three countries of North America are "polarized" on "sensitive" cultural issues such as the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage and that it might take a long time to "harmonize" their legal systems on such matters.   

While Pastor, a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic presidential candidates since 1976, tried to dismiss talk of a North American Union, he did emphasize in his remarks to the conference that North America is "more than a geographical entity" and is in fact a "community." His 2001 book, Toward a North American Community, begins by emphasizing his status as a resident of North America, rather than just a U.S. citizen, and outlines a vision of the three countries taking their relationship "to a new level."

Rather than use the phrase "union," he described the creation of an "emerging entity called North America" growing out of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), passed in 1993, had brought about a "remarkable degree of economic integration" among the three countries. One panel was devoted to analyzing how NAFTA could be expanded into the areas of intellectual property and taxation and regulations.

Attacking Conservatives

One speaker, Stephen Zamora of the University of Houston Law School, denounced the idea of a wall separating Mexico and the U.S., in order to control illegal immigration, asking, "What does citizenship mean anymore?" He expressed pleasant surprise when a Mexican in the audience said she had dual citizenship in Mexico and the U.S. Later, he said he was just as concerned about people living in Mexico as people living in the U.S. 

Another speaker, Tom Farer, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver, made a point of saying that his representative in Congress, Tom Tancredo (R-Col.), a staunch advocate of U.S. border security, was a backward thinker. Tancredo could be seen "dragging his knuckles along the ground," Farer said, trying to crack a joke.

No Border Control

Pastor acknowledged that the U.S. Government doesn't want to enforce its immigration laws. He said, however, that the solution is not a fence, except in some isolated high-crime areas along the border, and it's not to punish companies for hiring illegal aliens, since identity documents can be too easily forged. He said the solution is a national biometric and fraud-proof identification card that identifies national origin and legal status.   

Another part of his solution, a $200-billion North American Investment Fund, is for the purpose of narrowing the income disparity between Mexico, on the one hand, and the U.S. and Canada, on the other. "You need a lot of money to do it and do it effectively," he said. He said Mexico would be required to put up half of the money, with the U.S. contributing 40 percent and Canada 10 percent. It would be done over 10 years.

The fund, he said, would focus on economic development in the southern and middle parts of Mexico, which haven't been touched to any significant degree by NAFTA. This, he indicated, would go a long way toward stemming illegal immigration to the U.S.

So the failures of NAFTA are now being used not to repeal the measure but to expand it and increase foreign aid to Mexico.

Pastor said Senator John Cornyn, known as a conservative Republican, had introduced his North American Investment Fund as a bill in Congress but had backed away from it under conservative fire.

The Nature of NAFTA   

An important moment in the conference occurred when Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, was challenged about glossing over President Clinton's submission of NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate. Tarr said he had not intended to be uncritical of what Clinton did. Pastor quickly interjected that there was nothing improper in submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than a treaty.

But Clinton's move was seen at the time as an effort to bypass constitutional processes, and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA's constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the president and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.   

The history of NAFTA is one reason why so many conservatives are concerned that a North American Community could be transformed into a North American Union that runs roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

One of the main concerns of conservatives, who have formed a "Coalition to Block the North American Union," has been the lack of congressional interest and oversight. They are backing a bill introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) to put Congress on record against a North American Union.

The Secretive SPP
Another major concern is that the Bush Administration has facilitated the creation of this new North American "entity" through an initiative known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), based on a memorandum signed by President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico in March 2005. It is described as "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing," but its "working groups" have been operating in secret and many of the members are not even known.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public-interest law firm, had to go through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents naming the members of some of the mysterious working groups.     

Officially, on the U.S. side, the SPP is coordinated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez.

The Clinton Connection

Pastor's luncheon speaker, Eric Farnsworth, the Vice-President of the Council of the Americas, provided some valuable insight into this process. Saying NAFTA is "no longer enough," he described the SPP as designed to help North America meet the economic challenges posed by such countries as China and India. 

Farnsworth said that the Council of the Americas, which advises the SPP, would shortly issue 300 recommendations designed to improve business conditions in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. He was unclear as to whether the U.S. Government would try to implement these initiatives on its own, through the administrative or regulatory process, or whether they would be submitted to Congress for approval.

The Council's honorary chairman is David Rockefeller and its board members come from such major corporations as Merck, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Ford, Citibank, IBM, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, GE (which owns NBC News and MSNBC) and Time Warner (which owns CNN and Time Inc.).

One of the key board members is Thomas F. McLarty III, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, who served as Clinton's White House counselor and chief of staff during the time that NAFTA was signed and passed by Congress. McLarty, who also functioned as Special Envoy to the Americas under Clinton, is an adviser to the Carlyle Group, focusing on "buyout investment opportunities in Mexico." 

Farnsworth mentioned the possible creation of a "super-national Supreme Court" governing business and trade issues in North America, but was ambiguous about whether it would ever come to pass.

A self-described Democrat who served as policy director in the Clinton White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas from 1995-98, he also said that he was optimistic that Bush would strike a deal with the new Democratic-controlled Congress on immigration. He said Bush was "at odds with his own party" on immigration and that legislation to create a so-called "guest worker" program could pass now that Republicans have lost control of Congress.

The Panama Canal Giveaway

For his part, Pastor, a friendly and engaging fellow who talks about his ideas at length with critics, has a history that goes far beyond deep personal involvement in the Democratic Party.

Pastor is associated by conservatives with President Jimmy Carter's treaty, opposed by then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, which transferred control of the Panama Canal away from the U.S. to the Panamanian government. Pastor was National Security Advisor for Latin America under Carter. His nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Panama was withdrawn in 1995 after conservative Senator Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, threatened to block a vote on his nomination. Helms accused Pastor of aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region. 

The founding director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program of the [Jimmy] Carter Center, Pastor became Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations at American University on September 1, 2002, when he created his Center for North American Studies. Pastor also served as vice chair of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on the Future of North America, which issued a report in May 2005. Lately, Pastor's Center for North American Studies has received funding from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to address "regulatory convergence" issues.

A sour note about the prospect of further integration with Mexico was provided at the conference by Alberto Szekely, a career ambassador and advisor to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said that the rule of law simply does not exist in Mexico and that corruption permeates governmental institutions. He said reforms under the presidency of Vicente Fox went nowhere and that Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the world today.

Ironically, however, he said that the development of a North American legal system might in some way assist in cleaning up the Mexican legal system. 

Pastor, an optimist about the prospect of developing the North American Community, told me that he didn't think the situation in Mexico was as bleak as Szekely made it out to be. He continues to be a proponent of "continental thinking."

Cliff Kincaid is editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report. This article may be reproduced if credit is given and a link provided to www.aim.org




Posted on: May 13, 2007, 07:36:10 amDo you want more evidence than this?   Or would you just rather believe and trust GW on it?

[GG]

I like the European Union.

[Godfather of Soul]

Stop editorializing the articles with bolds etc.  Put them up so that people can judge for themselves without your comments.

Do you know the history of your source?  Do you know who AIM is?

Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American organization which monitors the news media in the United States. Founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine, at the time an economist with the Federal Reserve, AIM describes itself as "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage".

It commonly attacks what it sees as media bias. Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality[citation needed], it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.

LMAO...look at what I bolded. 

Criticism

Critics say AIM's attacks on the media seem to have little to do with actual misrepresentation or inaccuracies in media accounts. They assert that Irvine and AIM is quick to attack groups that do not fit in the group's ideological niche. Donald Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, alleges that Irvine tends to "throw around accusations about people being communists."

AIM has also been vigorously defensive of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, referring to his critics as "liars" and "communists," and defending his legacy, claiming that he never once fingered an innocent person in his accusations during the red scare he helped to fan.

Funding

Irvine claims that 75 percent of AIM's funding comes from contributors donating US$100 or less. Only three donors of the remainder are given by name: the Allied Educational Foundation, Shelby Cullom Davis, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife gave $2 million to Accuracy in Media since 1977 -1997.

Other groups that have supported AIM include Mobil Oil and Union Carbide. In 1985, AIM received a $20,000 grant from the Adolph Coors Foundation, and $7,000 from the Texaco Philanthropic Foundation. In 1986, it received $5,000 from Texaco.

In December 2004, the American Institute of Philanthropy gave AIM a grade of "C+" for not-for-profit effectiveness. It noted that it would have awarded a grade of "A", but reduced the grade because AIM retains 4.1 years' worth of operating expenses in assets. It feels that AIM is in a poor position to ask donors for more funding when it is already cash-rich.

Sounds like some anit-communist propaganda to me...

[Alloy]

I’m in school right now so I can’t watch any of the videos from what I have read so far, I really don’t like this whole biometrics traveller concept. I wouldn’t like them looking over me like that, I mean licence plates and ID's are good enough as it is. Why do some members have to stay hidden in this again? Seems like there only looking out for the global elite, I hate when they use vague terms like "we", "stakeholders", "Working Groups". Also wouldn’t information sharing create greater risk rather than more security?
I will read it more in depth when i get home and also watch all the videos and the rest of the articles.

[RMX]

Gos-- All the previous threads are several months old, those edits were done at the time of posting.   And what the hell is so wrong with adding my comments?  Stop being such a stiff especially with way old posts.   Anyways...

Do you care to question the video that I posted TODAY?   I think it is pretty clear somebody didn't get the memo regarding the SPP promulgation.  It appears it's going down as planned, just as forecasted by questionable sources...but whatever.   

Do you want a biometric ID card?   Do you want increased globalization ran by these same elites?  It seems as if you do.     

[The Wiseman]

I still don't see how the SPP is anything other than NAFTA on steroids. It will not create a continental merger or integration of people and governments, but expand multinational corporate control throughout the continent. RMX, the problem with many of your articles is that they are mostly far-right libertarian propaganda pieces fearing the internationalist aspects and the loss of "national sovereignty" of free trade agreements and other neoliberal proposals. The U.S. borders will not be eliminated but become increasingly militarized. Neoliberalism is about the free movement of transnational corporations, not Third World indigenous people.

To get off topic a little:

If I could politically identify you correctly you would easily fit under paleo-conservatism mixed with Afro-centrism, the wierdest political combination I have ever seen considering paleo-conservatism is generally a white, far-right, and racist political position and Afro-centrism has generally mixed with liberation movements. Perhaps they both have a similarity with an emphasis on national or geographical identity but that is not how you interpret your Afro-centric viewpoint. Your Afro-centrism originates from your "all humanity bleeds red" philosophy and that all humanity comes from Africa but this is not compatible with U.S. paleoconservative nationalism! Combining the two together is a complete political clusterfuck! You need to reconcile your obvious U.S. nationalism and African humanitarianism.

[RMX]

I still don't see how the SPP is anything other than NAFTA on steroids.

Is that a good thing?   That seems akin to handing your bare-fisted abuser a gun... not a smart move, IMO. 

It will not create a continental merger or integration of people and governments, but expand multinational corporate control throughout the continent.

At first, this was just conspiracy.  Now your are predicting its course and range.  The goal of the ruling racist class is not just about capital and/or wealth accumalation.  These creeps have enough money and resource control to last them lifetimes.  A more appropriate guess can be descibed as a sadistic game of cat and mouse, where they are the cats and of course we are the mice.   Have you ever seen the way a cat 'plays' with a mouse?   It does not seem like too much fun for the mouse, not at all.     

RMX, the problem with many of your articles is that they are mostly far-right libertarian propaganda pieces fearing the internationalist aspects and the loss of "national sovereignty" of free trade agreements and other neoliberal proposals.

   

I wish they weren't but they are.   And while I do not agree with their specific ultimate goals either, they put the information out there.   So far, much of the information has been mostly correct albeit slanted.  You saw the video I just posted here above, yes?  MSM is still denying this or intentionally overlooking this.  Although my aspirations are different than these right-wingers, they are not mutually exclusive; some areas of interest and concern DO overlap.  We are gonna have to cross junctures at some point in the future.  Its like black and white gangs in prison working together to defeat their jailer 'pigs' (not saying I am working with them NOW but something will have to give sooner or later if we earnestly believe the imminent change we strive for will happen) 

The U.S. borders will not be eliminated but become increasingly militarized. Neoliberalism is about the free movement of transnational corporations, not Third World indigenous people.

A border is an imagnary line of demarcation agreed to by respective parties.  The so-called elimaination of them is just a mental exercise indicating an agreed statement of intent to speed up the movement of goods and resources.  The placement of any military is not to ensure that sovereignty is maintained but rather to ensure that the expolited human resources don't get too crazy and try to do what they want.  In others words, its a show of force by respective rulers to ensure tha their goals are accomplished in the most cost effective manner while still having the ability to suppress any subsequent uprisings which is sure to happen once people say enough is enough with the exploitation.  The gap is widening as we speak; the fuse has been lit. 

I don't have a need or desire to defend these borders like these right-wingers do.  I have no beef with my brothers in the south or the north for that matter but I do have beef with something else--the exploiters.   This whole border issue has been dragged out to create the conditions of extreme polarities mostly stemming from ignorance.   IMO, If people were to see the bigger picture, their own methods and goals might change but as with typical (predicatable) human nature we often fall short or get caught up with personal preferences molded by our limited experiences, knowledge, and exposure.  I float somewhere in the middle with strong personal convictions in my mind and spirit but remain flexible in practice.   My will is for the greatest good with consideration for peace and justice first and foremost, in a equitable fashion for ALL. 

To get off topic a little:

If I could politically identify you correctly you would easily fit under paleo-conservatism mixed with Afro-centrism, the wierdest political combination I have ever seen considering paleo-conservatism is generally a white, far-right, and racist political position and Afro-centrism has generally mixed with liberation movements. Perhaps they both have a similarity with an emphasis on national or geographical identity but that is not how you interpret your Afro-centric viewpoint. Your Afro-centrism originates from your "all humanity bleeds red" philosophy and that all humanity comes from Africa but this is not compatible with U.S. paleoconservative nationalism! Combining the two together is a complete political clusterfuck! You need to reconcile your obvious U.S. nationalism and African humanitarianism.

Thats the problem I have with the eurocentric, left-sided heavy, predominant thinking that is abundant here amongst many.  It always wants to place a label on something and confine it to just that label(s) or name or definition.  Sorry to bust your bubble and analysis attempt (another left-sided brain function which generally governs the european mind however blacks are not exempt)  but you are wrong!!   It's not your fault tho'; it's the conditioning we have been taught since childhood especially here in the West and/or elsewhere the West has imposed its methods. 

My discovery and re-learning of my dormant other half has created the conditioning needed to transcend the limitations of left-sided heavy thinking.   I would refer you some reading materials but I know you would just scoff at them so I will refrain.   But here is a hint acknowledged by even the most racist of western scholars:  The African was/is right- sided heavy; so much so that it was to his/her own detriment when confronted by visitors from far up north many moons ago.  Follow??

The key is balance, it has always been and I can go across the globe and show you this in any cultural,politcal, or spiritual approach.   Hence the seemingly contradictory stance on my part (both politcally and socially) but trust it is most effective when dealing with matters of this world where the infinite possibilties exist for both to manifest, at any place and time. 


I will leave you with this quote:

 First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
                                                                                    --Mohandas Gandhi


Would you rather me just post in the lounge?   It aint gonna happen, there is too much at stake.  Right or wrong, I am gonna do me but remember I am flexible, you ought to try it sometime.   

P.E.A.C.E.

[Godfather of Soul]

Gos-- All the previous threads are several months old, those edits were done at the time of posting.   And what the hell is so wrong with adding my comments?  Stop being such a stiff especially with way old posts.   Anyways...

Do you care to question the video that I posted TODAY?   I think it is pretty clear somebody didn't get the memo regarding the SPP promulgation.  It appears it's going down as planned, just as forecasted by questionable sources...but whatever.   

Do you want a biometric ID card?   Do you want increased globalization ran by these same elites?  It seems as if you do.     

I don't care about a biometric ID card.  If they really want my biometric data, they will just get a judge to subpoena it.  Plus they already have my biometric data (fingerprints). 

Yeah, that's me, Mr. Globalization.  I am not for the SPP, but focusing on it in the way that you do isn't going to do anything to mitigate globalization.  Your conspiratorial approach is counterproducitive and will make few, if  any, inroads in the minds of people who have the power to stop it.  But what is your strategy other than saying "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING"?  You don't have one and you need to start posting sources that aren't politically REACTIONARY for me to take this more seriously.  It REEKS of nationalism, REEKS of the kind of closed border xenophobia, "we must protect America" bullshit that ends in a bunch of brown people getting lynched.   

What's wrong with you giving your comments?  You're a smart guy, who claims that he wants everyone to find the truth for him or herself, a guy who wants things to be as "objective" as possible.  What's funny is that when someone calls you on your agenda, you get all defensive.  I ain't gonna hide my agenda, it's out there, in the open and unapologetically leftist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/carlsen08252007.html

Is a much better analysis than your right wing shite.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ryan03012006.html


But you are a HOT MESS sometimes.  You say something right on like this:

A border is an imagnary line of demarcation agreed to by respective parties.  The so-called elimaination of them is just a mental exercise indicating an agreed statement of intent to speed up the movement of goods and resources.  The placement of any military is not to ensure that sovereignty is maintained but rather to ensure that the expolited human resources don't get too crazy and try to do what they want.  In others words, its a show of force by respective rulers to ensure tha their goals are accomplished in the most cost effective manner while still having the ability to suppress any subsequent uprisings which is sure to happen once people say enough is enough with the exploitation.  The gap is widening as we speak; the fuse has been lit.

I don't have a need or desire to defend these borders like these right-wingers do.  I have no beef with my brothers in the south or the north for that matter but I do have beef with something else--the exploiters.   This whole border issue has been dragged out to create the conditions of extreme polarities mostly stemming from ignorance.   IMO, If people were to see the bigger picture, their own methods and goals might change but as with typical (predicatable) human nature we often fall short or get caught up with personal preferences molded by our limited experiences, knowledge, and exposure.  I float somewhere in the middle with strong personal convictions in my mind and spirit but remain flexible in practice.   My will is for the greatest good with consideration for peace and justice first and foremost, in a equitable fashion for ALL.

And follow it with this:

Thats the problem I have with the eurocentric, left-sided heavy, predominant thinking that is abundant here amongst many.  It always wants to place a label on something and confine it to just that label(s) or name or definition.  Sorry to bust your bubble and analysis  attempt (another left-sided brain function which generally governs the european mind however blacks are not exempt)  but you are wrong!!   It's not your fault tho'; it's the conditioning we have been taught since childhood especially here in the West and/or elsewhere the West has imposed its methods.

My discovery and re-learning of my dormant other half has created the conditioning needed to transcend the limitations of left-sided heavy thinking.   I would refer you some reading materials but I know you would just scoff at them so I will refrain.   But here is a hint acknowledged by even the most racist of western scholars:  The African was/is right- sided heavy; so much so that it was to his/her own detriment when confronted by visitors from far up north many moons ago.  Follow??

The key is balance, it has always been and I can go across the globe and show you this in any cultural,politcal, or spiritual approach.   Hence the seemingly contradictory stance on my part (both politcally and socially) but trust it is most effective when dealing with matters of this world where the infinite possibilties exist for both to manifest, at any place and time.

Left side Right side?  Are you fucking kidding me?  This is the type of talk that undermines your arguments because it's full of dumb ass color prejudice.  This board is LEFT WING because that's what the over-arching political philosophy of the artist who has its namesake!  It is what draws people here.  Tech is no friend to conservatives.  But instead of just undoing your CONTRADICTIONS, you try to justify them. 

Post your materials, I would love to see them.  I would love to see the scientific surveys of tens of thousands of black people.  Hell, I would accept brain scans of 5000 black people out of a population of a BILLION plus.  But somehow I don't think you're going to produce a single source that has done any significant laboratory tests and actual brain scans.  You know, that would probably be the BEST method to support this notion, but you won't have it.

Go read some Frantz Fanon, because whatever you are going to post won't come close to Msr.  Fanon.

[RMX]

You really messed that post up and you don't even realize it.   (Visualize a Soup Sandwich if you will)  I will help sort out your HOT MESS soon enough.   

[Godfather of Soul]

Enlighten me.  Or at least respond to the part of my post, and do it in another thread, which explains the left-side right side dynamic. 

[The Wiseman]

Is that a good thing?   That seems akin to handing your bare-fisted abuser a gun... not a smart move, IMO. 

What are you talking about? I didn't say it was a good thing, I just said it doesn't deserve all the one-world government right-wing paranoia of the sites you have promoted.

At first, this was just conspiracy.  Now your are predicting its course and range.  The goal of the ruling racist class is not just about capital and/or wealth accumalation.  These creeps have enough money and resource control to last them lifetimes.  A more appropriate guess can be descibed as a sadistic game of cat and mouse, where they are the cats and of course we are the mice.   Have you ever seen the way a cat 'plays' with a mouse?   It does not seem like too much fun for the mouse, not at all.

I never said it was just a conspiracy, the idea that there will be a continental government is the conspiracy. You don't understand capitalism, the basis of the capitalist mindset is profit accumulation. If capitalism stopped when it had enough then there would be no need for capitalist imperialism, it could have survived without control of foreign markets. The capitalist mindset is to expand, expand, expand as far as you can possibly go in exploitation or further. This is why it has led to global hegemony. Ever since the 1970s they have been eliminating any Keynesian economic policies that stand in the way of or negatively affect profit accumulation. The SPP is just another stepping stone for them in solidifying neoliberal hegemony.
   

I wish they weren't but they are.   And while I do not agree with their specific ultimate goals either, they put the information out there.   So far, much of the information has been mostly correct albeit slanted.  You saw the video I just posted here above, yes?  MSM is still denying this or intentionally overlooking this.  Although my aspirations are different than these right-wingers, they are not mutually exclusive; some areas of interest and concern DO overlap.  We are gonna have to cross junctures at some point in the future.  Its like black and white gangs in prison working together to defeat their jailer 'pigs' (not saying I am working with them NOW but something will have to give sooner or later if we earnestly believe the imminent change we strive for will happen) 

Unfortunately I don't believe the enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend. Right-wing libertarians oppose current government and corporations for all the wrong reasons and even if we were to unite to take them down, there would still be a lot of fucking fighting afterwards between ourselves. To be real they are all a bunch of quasi fascists and my end of the spectrum and their end is almost completely opposed. There is more than just superficial differences, they have many ruling class ideas like their belief in absolute free market economics which is the guide to their ideology. They are reactionary to the very core, I will not support reactionary change or ever unite with it.

A border is an imagnary line of demarcation agreed to by respective parties.  The so-called elimaination of them is just a mental exercise indicating an agreed statement of intent to speed up the movement of goods and resources.  The placement of any military is not to ensure that sovereignty is maintained but rather to ensure that the expolited human resources don't get too crazy and try to do what they want.  In others words, its a show of force by respective rulers to ensure tha their goals are accomplished in the most cost effective manner while still having the ability to suppress any subsequent uprisings which is sure to happen once people say enough is enough with the exploitation.  The gap is widening as we speak; the fuse has been lit. 

Borders will not be willingly eliminated anytime soon and if they are then good riddens. Nations states have not existed for very long and for that time they have only brought misery, conflict, and suffering in humanity. You speak kind of vaguely in the rest of the paragraph, elaborate. The militarization of the borders came about for several purposes a) increasingly lucrative contracts for "defense" corporations in the military industrial complex b) xenophobic and racist lack of regard for the lives of migrant workers.

I don't have a need or desire to defend these borders like these right-wingers do.  I have no beef with my brothers in the south or the north for that matter but I do have beef with something else--the exploiters.   This whole border issue has been dragged out to create the conditions of extreme polarities mostly stemming from ignorance.   IMO, If people were to see the bigger picture, their own methods and goals might change but as with typical (predicatable) human nature we often fall short or get caught up with personal preferences molded by our limited experiences, knowledge, and exposure.  I float somewhere in the middle with strong personal convictions in my mind and spirit but remain flexible in practice.   My will is for the greatest good with consideration for peace and justice first and foremost, in a equitable fashion for ALL. 

You basically said absolutely nothing right here, what extreme polarities are you talking about? In the border and immigration debate there are several positions but I tend to hold to the least popular, there's a) The conservative xenophobic and racist argument about closing the Mexican border down and shooting any people who attempt to cross, b) The liberal exploitive argument that migrant workers are a good source of cheap labor and we should allow them to keep coming to expand corporate profits and then there's c) The egalitarian position that we should open up the border and provide decents wages, benefits, etc. for migrants. Not to mention abolish NAFTA which destroyed Mexico's economy and contributed to large waves of undocumented immigration. Not to mention abolish CAFTA and provide reperations and reconcilation to the nations of Central America for our terrorist and "counterinsurgency" wars of the 1980s. What position do you have on any of this RMX? When do you ever take a look at or even care about the struggles of these people?

Thats the problem I have with the eurocentric, left-sided heavy, predominant thinking that is abundant here amongst many.  It always wants to place a label on something and confine it to just that label(s) or name or definition.  Sorry to bust your bubble and analysis attempt (another left-sided brain function which generally governs the european mind however blacks are not exempt)  but you are wrong!!   It's not your fault tho'; it's the conditioning we have been taught since childhood especially here in the West and/or elsewhere the West has imposed its methods.

If its looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be labeling to call it a fucking duck? Unfortunately you're articles and set of beliefs are not all unique, they do fit under a set ideology known as paleo-conservatism on one hand and Afro-centrism on the other, like it or not. You believe in U.S. nationalism, federal reserve conspiracism, one world government and illuminati conspiracism, etc. Your set of beliefs are characteristic of white, middle class, and reactionary conspiracism. You could still believe in lets say a federal reserve conspiracy and not be put into the category if you didn't believe in a long list of other far right conspiracist ideas but unfortunately you do and the shoe fits. Not to mention your little cocktail of African romanticism and generalization which is just a fucking crazy concoction to put all in one. I don't where you get your analysis about left/right brain thinking in regards to Africa and Eurocentrism but I'd like to say that Afrocentrism is no replacement for Eurocentrism. But go ahead and post your proof like GOS said.

My discovery and re-learning of my dormant other half has created the conditioning needed to transcend the limitations of left-sided heavy thinking.   I would refer you some reading materials but I know you would just scoff at them so I will refrain.   But here is a hint acknowledged by even the most racist of western scholars:  The African was/is right- sided heavy; so much so that it was to his/her own detriment when confronted by visitors from far up north many moons ago.  Follow??

I follow you have an extremely general view of Africa despite the large variety of cultures, languages, and beliefs that have existed there for many years.