Globalist think tank Strategizes on the "North American Consciousness"

[pisshead]

just like gary hart said the new world order would occur, through crisis...hmm, who benefits from all these crises and wars...they hate freedom, and they ain't freedom hating muslims...

they can tell us directly how they're going to do it, yet the average person has no clue and will deny it...that's the nature of tyranny and dominance and dictatorship i guess...



Globalist think tank Strategizes on the "North American Consciousness" Daniel Taylor
Old-thinker news (http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/globalist_think_tank.htm)
Tuesday Aug 7, 2007
"This is how we will create a North American consciousness and a true North American Community. It will be forged in the heat of conflict, not through a rational discussion, as painful as that may be. It really cannot happen any other way." - Bruce Stokes, CFR Senior Fellow, speaking at the "Toward a North American Community?" conference, June 11, 2002
In reading a little noticed June 11, 2002 document (link (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/Toward%20a%20North%20American%20Community%20-%20A%20Conference%20Report.pdf)) detailing a conference held by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/), shocking revelations are made regarding the elite's plans to create a North American Union between Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America.
The "Toward a North American Community? (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/Toward%20a%20North%20American%20Community%20-%20A%20Conference%20Report.pdf)" conference focused on the social and ideological aspects of the creation of a "North American Community", and prescribes ways to deal with nationalism and a belief in the sovereignty of ones own country; both obstacles to their plans. A "North American Consciousness" - an outlook absent of traditional beliefs in sovereignty, replaced by an international view favorable to globalism - is needed, the panelists conclude, that would support the "... economic, political, and social integration..." of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The title "Toward a North American Community" may sound familiar to some. This was the title that Robert Pastor, one of the main proponents of a North American Community, gave to his book that was published just a year before the Woodrow Wilson conference.
The "Toward a North American Community?" conference is described in the document,
"This conference was a departure from many recent events on North America. Instead of looking exclusively at trade and investment, the panelists were asked to focus on relationships in North America and to examine identity, sovereignty, and political practices in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Further economic, political, and social integration will depend on how citizens of the three countries define their national identities and the degree to which they are willing to cede some of their countriesâ?? sovereignty to a larger entity."
The document continues, reiterating the same theme from above,
"The first panel of the conference brought together scholars from the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Panelists looked at American, Mexican, and Canadian attitudes on identity and sovereignty in the context of North America. Trade, political integration, and the nature of agreements among the three countries will depend largely on the way people in these countries define their interests, and the extent to which they feel there is something to be gained from a North American Community."
Presentations were given by representatives from Mexico, Canada, and the United States respectively. The task of each was to present the political and social atmosphere of each country with respect to "North American integration." Stephanie R. Golob of Baruch College and member of the Council on Foreign Relations represented the United States. Alejandro Moreno, director of research for Reforma, and professor at Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México represented Mexico. Laura Macdonald of Carleton University represented Canada.
Stephanie Golob expressed concerns that negative American reactions to NAFTA remain a major obstacle to North American integration.
"...Golob indicated that despite this perception that the United States is driving integration, related concerns in the United States about popular sovereignty and national integrity drove the highly emotional NAFTA debate back in 1993, and continue to form a key obstacle to North American Community."
Because of this, Golob states that North American integration will have to come "...from the top down." Golob's analysis concluded that, "Many bottom-up linkages such as migration and the spread of the Spanish language demonstrate community among the three countries."
Another recommendation given by Golob is that,
"...the President and his inner circle could fuel its development from the top down by demonstrating to Congress and the media that the expansion of North American integration is in the national interest."
It appears that the President has not followed this strategy just yet, as secrecy still surrounds NAU plans. Outright denial of plans for a North American Union have come from the White House press secretary, Tony Snow. He was asked by World Net Daily about the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the progress towards a North American Union. Snow flatly denied any involvement.
As World Net Daily reports (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51029),
"WND asked Snow about the criticism, stating, 'As WorldNetDaily's lead story pointed out yesterday, critics are expressing concerns about the president's cooperative efforts with Mexico and Canada regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership. And my question: Will the president categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America?'"
Responded Snow: "Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."
The document elaborates on Golob's proposal stating that her research showed that forming a "North American identity" from a "foreign policy perspective" may aid in the shaping of public opinion. According to Golob, redefining the word "we" would also help in the formation of a North American identity.
"Foreign policy, she asserted, provides three things for a nationâ??s citizens: sovereignty, security, and identity.
Sovereignty dictates that the stateâ??s citizens and government (â??weâ?�) decide policy, identity defines â??who we areâ?� as a nation, and security protects a nationâ??s sovereignty and identity. Governments must convince citizens that the regional project is consistent with these three values by expanding the definition of the â??we.â?�'
The document continues, describing Golob's findings on America's stance with regards to a North American Community.
"Golob suggested that the United States, ironically, may prove the greatest obstacle to this process."
Golob is correct in viewing America as an obstacle to a North American Union. While there remains a large section of the population that is oblivious of its existence, there is an aware and motivated group of Americans that is. Lou Dobbs, who has been the only prominent mainstream media figure to raise awareness of the North American Union, conducted a poll (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107Poll.htm)in early 2007 asking viewers if they would support legislation to prohibit the creation of a North American Union. 82% of respondents stated that "Yes" they would support efforts to stop the NAU.
Golob's proposal goes further, suggesting that North American integration should be framed in a "non-threatening" manner by binding in the public's mind the protection of U.S. industries and North American integration. Also discussed is the possibility of creating the false perception that the people are demanding integration.
"She suggested, however, that future decisions on greater integration would most likely come about via â??integration through protectionism,â?� where agreements to integrate the three countries further are coupled with measures that protect specific U.S. industries. This would be an incremental approach to integration in which North American identity is deepened in sectors already integrating and is framed as non-threatening to those sectors which see themselves outside of regional flows. This approach would be driven by Congress and require the building of constituencies so that the issue could be framed as a â??winner at the polls.â?�"
The document also contains a transcript of a speech that Bruce Stokes gave at the conference. Stokes is a Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, commentator for National Public Radio, and writer for the National Journal.
Stokes states that,
"...we can agree that people are not at the point of believing in a North American Community yet. They still think and act as three separate entities. But they engage in their daily lives in new and different ways in issues that are really North American issues. Our challenge, as people that view the North American Community, is that we need to find issues that people are engaged inâ??whether they are trivial or dangerously provocativeâ?? and use them to move toward a broader North American consciousness."
The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, focused on one such provocative issue in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021)." Among other issues, Haass states that climate change, or global warming, should give an incentive to cede sovereignty "...to world bodies..." He states that, "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."
Stokes concludes his speech by saying that,
"This is how we will create a North American consciousness and a true North American Community. It will be forged in the heat of conflict, not through a rational discussion, as painful as that may be. It really cannot happen any other way."
The American people, as well as our neighbors to the north and south, have been totally alienated as the North American Union marches forward. The "Toward a North American Community?" conference panelists do want to include you in the integration process - but apparently only to manipulate you. A casual observation of the actions of the individuals and organizations involved in the creation of the North American Union seems to show that the predominant strategyin recent years has been to shun the public (http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/montebello_spp_meeting_secrecy_p.htm). This chosen path of secrecy may be in response to the findings of the Woodrow Wilson conference that "...people are not at the point of believing in a North American Community yet." In the event the NAU becomes much more open to the public - perhaps due to the exposure of the plans thanks to individuals like Jerome R. Corsi (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-U-S-Coming-Merger/dp/0979045142), Dr. Daneen G. Peterson (http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/) and others - we may in fact see the strategies outlined during this 2002 conference put to use.
More important information:
Globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have a structure that serves to maximize their influence and effectiveness. Members in the Corporate, Academic, and Political realms work towards a common goal. As Patrick Wood of the August Review writes (http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_global_elite:_who_are_they?_200511146/),
"The global elite march in three essential columns: Corporate, Political and Academic. For the sake of clarity, these names will be used herein to refer to these three groups.
In general, the goals for globalism are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate's goals. Political sells Academic's arguments to the public and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants."
While Robert Pastor has been given the majority of media attention, other individuals in the Academic realm from across the country have written papers regarding North American integration.
The following is a list of several papers written by these individuals.
Civil Society and North American Integration (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/civil%20society%20and%20north%20american%20integra tion.pdf)
Immigration - Mapping the New North American Reality (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/immigration%20-%20mapping%20the%20new%20north%20american%20realit y.pdf)
The Political Economy of a Single North American Currency (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/the%20political%20economy%20of%20a%20single%20nort h%20american%20currency.pdf)
SPP and The Way Forward for North American Integration (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/SPP%20and%20the%20Way%20Forward%20for%20North%20Am erican%20Integration.pdf)
Monetary Convergence Between Canada and the United States: A Critique of the Official View (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/Monetary%20convergence%20between%20canada%20and%20 the%20united%20states%20-%20a%20critique%20of%20the%20official%20view.pdf)
The Role of Subnational Governments in the Governance of North America (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/the%20role%20of%20sub%20national%20governments%20i n%20the%20governance%20of%20north%20america.pdf)
Trade and Environment in North America (http://prisonplanet.com/documents/trade%20and%20environment%20in%20north%20america.p df)

[pisshead]

Canada and Bush's North American Union project Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2284.shtml)
Thursday Aug 9, 2007
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." --Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961

â??An agreement [with the U.S.] to harmonize trade, security, or defence practices would, in the end, require Canada and Mexico to . . . cede to the United States power over foreign trade and investment, environmental regulation, immigration, and, to a large degree, foreign policy, and even monetary and fiscal policy.â?� --Roy McLaren, former liberal trade minister
Look for a very strong backlash coming from the Canadian people, but also from the American and Mexican peoples, once they clearly understand what the Bush-Calderon-Harper trio has been concocting in near complete secrecy and with nearly no public debate whatsoever, over the last few years.

Indeed, the three relatively unpopular governments presently in charge in Washington, Ottawa and Mexico, have aligned themselves with very large corporations, most of them American owned, to lay the foundations for a new North American Union (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_American_Union), (NAU) also called the "Deep Integration (https://www.ussf2007.org/en/node/2634)" project. This would be a new permanent alliance that would be de facto placed under American control. Canada and Mexico would have to harmonize many of their laws and regulations to suit the interests of big business and the undemocratic and imperial ambitions of the U.S. government around the world.
With such a plan for an enlarged continental integration at both the economic and political levels, we are far from the initial program of fair and free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade) for goods and services and for removing barriers to trade between the three countries, as initially envisaged by the 1988 Free Trade Agreement (http://www.international.gc.ca/nafta-alena/menu-en.asp), (FTA) between Canada and the United States. It has to be remembered that under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) (NAFTA), Canada not only accepted that Mexico be incorporated into the North American free trade zone, but made substantial concessions regarding the Investment Canada Act's (http://investcan.ic.gc.ca/) rules for American takeovers of Canadian companies and for a privileged American access to Canadian energy resources. This should have sufficed to keep the American market open to Canadian exporters. It seems that this is no longer the case. Large corporations and the U.S. administration alike want to take advantage of the terrorist threat to go much further in extracting concessions from Canada.
Indeed, under the leadership of large American owned corporations, which operate freely on both sides of the border, and with the new security concerns of the U.S. administration, the initial trade objective is being further expanded and pushed to a much higher level. The idea now is to turn the trade agreements into some sort of an umbrella political organization that would be parallel to the 27-nation European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union).
In fact, it could mean a more ambitious project that could go even further than the EU toward economic and political integration in North America. In Europe, the more than two dozen participating countries have retained control over their armed forces and over their foreign policies and, what is very important, no single country exercises a hegemonic control over the entire alliance. That would not be the case in North America, however, because of the overwhelming importance of the United States vis-a-vis the other two countries.
Indeed, what has been advanced for Canada, Mexico and the United States -- three countries very much dissimilar in populations, cultures and outlooks -- could go as far as de facto merging the armed forces and foreign policies of all three countries to form a sort of Fortress North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_North_America) under the protectorate of the United States. Any such deep integration beyond trade relationships would place the United States and its government in the driver's seat, with the other two countries somewhat relegated to the status of near political and economic colonies.
It won't work. For one thing, the Canadian people will never accept that Canada become a colony of the United States, and the current minority government of Stephen Harper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper) could pay dearly politically if it continues pushing in that direction. Canadians do not want their armed forces and their foreign policy to be de facto merged with those of imperial America. Moreover, they do not want their natural resources to be placed under U.S. control and exploited nearly completely by large American corporations, which have little regard for Canada's sovereignty and little concern for the welfare of Canadians. Also, they do not want the Canadian dollar ditched in favor of a less and less attractive U.S. dollar, as some have suggested.
However, all this could be the end result of the secretive efforts that have been deployed at the highest levels under the disguise of the mysterious acronym of "SPP," the so-called program of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (http://spp.gov/), also referred to by its proponents as "Deep Integration." This integration initiative was officially launched in a summit meeting between George W. Bush (USA), Vicente Fox (Mexico) and Paul Martin (Canada), held in Waco Texas, on March 23, 2005.
Large Canadian corporations and not so "Canadian" corporations any more -- such as Alcan, about to be sold to British owned Rio Tinto -- and many Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations have been the driving force behind the push for a North American Union. In Canada, they are regrouped within the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Council_of_Chief_Executives) (CCCE), which has been lobbying the Harper government (http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0056)in favor of the plan.
Among the 150 corporate members of the Canadian Council of CEOs, alongside large Canadian banks and corporations, one finds many leading American corporations that have branches or subsidiaries in Canada, such as du Pont, FedEx, General Electric, General Motors, Chrysler, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, IBM, Imperial Oil, Kodak, 3M, Microsoft, Pratt & Whitney, Suncor, Wyeth, Xerox, etc. These CEOs do not really see Canada as a country separate from the United States, but more as an adjacent market to be occupied and controlled.
It was four years ago, in January 2003, that the CCCE launched its North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI). (http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/north/north.php) The politicians then followed suit. The CCCE's initiative advanced a strategy comprising five major elements:
1- The reinvention of Canada-U.S.-Mexico borders;
2- The maximization of regulatory efficiencies;
3- The negotiation of a comprehensive continental resource security pact;
4- The negotiation of a North American defence alliance;
5- And the creation of a new institutional framework for this new North American Union.
Then the Canadian Council of CEOs enlisted the support of two other organizations, first, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/about/), a foreign affairs outfit that has been strongly supportive of George W. Bush's war against Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) and, second, the Mexican Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Their joint task force, called the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html) issued a report in May 2005, whose title was "Building a North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/)." The report contained 39 specific recommendations aimed at de facto erasing borders and at creating a single North American economic and security space within a North American political partnership, involving the United States, Canada and Mexico.
In a nutshell, the Task Forceâ??s central recommendation was to establish, by 2010 (only three years from now!!!), a North American economic and security community, the North American Union, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and a common outer security perimeter, including a common border pass. That is the essence of the proposed new "Deep Integration" project: One market, one economic border, and one official security apparatus. Nobody is talking yet of "one flag" or "one currency," but that could come.
This proposal has been discussed at summits held by the leaders of the three involved countries, first in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, to launch the initiative, then one year later in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, where it was decided to create the 30-member North American Competitiveness Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Competitiveness_Council) (NACC), a tri-national working group responsible for setting priorities for the SPP and to act as a stable driver of the deep integration process through changes in government in all three countries.
On August 20-21 (2007), at Château Montebello, in Montebello, Québec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_Ameri ca), American President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will again discuss the project during a third (SPP) summit.
For most Canadians, until now, this trilateral initiative seemed simply to pursue the goal of facilitating trade and travel between the three countries, in a way that would not jeopardize the implementation of security measures that have become necessary in the aftermath of 9/11. For sure, if this were the only objective of such trilateral political and bureaucratic consultations (and they started in 2001), most people would understand the need, either for new physical installations at the border and/or for new administrative arrangements designed to reduce transit times, through pre-customs clearing or otherwise. They would not have the fear of seeing their government embarking on a wholesale abandonment of their national sovereignty.
As of now, however, one suspects that the long lines of Canadian trucks frequently observed at the U.S-Canada border, six years after 9/11, reflect some bad faith on the part of the U.S. government. It seems to be using terrorist threats as a excuse to raise its protectionist stance and a reason for applying undue pressures on the relatively inexperienced Harper government. Canadians remember how the Bush-Cheney administration refused to follow the rulings of numerous NAFTA arbitration panels and imposed upon Canada a managed trade deal for softwood lumber trade (http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/tremblay=1019).
In any case, the objectives being pursued by the "Deep Integration" project go far beyond shortening transit times at the border. They are much more numerous and much more controversial and risky for Canada's national sovereignty than simply building larger installations and harmonizing border controls to enhance trade and travel flows.
Indeed, the real overall goal of the "Deep Integration" project goes much further and would ultimately lead to the creation of a North American Union (http://www.spp.gov/)of a political and not only an economic nature, within which the three countries, but especially a smaller country such as Canada, could lose much of their national sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty). It would be an economic and political arrangement resembling the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_majority_voting), which encompasses more than two dozen countries, but in North America it is to be feared that such a union would have an imperial twist. It would transform NAFTA into a common market and would force the two smaller partners to change all their relevant laws and regulations to conform to American laws and regulations, including toeing the American line on defense and foreign policies.
As can be seen, we are quite far from the idea of simply having facilitated border controls for products and people. What these secret meetings are envisaging is more like a new political and comprehensive alliance between the United States, Canada and Mexico. But because of the force of gravity, this also means, in practice, that the United States will turn Canada, and to a certain extent Mexico, into quasi colonies of the U.S. Indeed, the United States is a political elephant that does pretty much what it wants, especially under the Bush-Cheney administration, while Canada and Mexico are, at best, a small beaver in one case, and a small fox in the other. This could have the consequence of considerably reducing the quality of democratic life in Canada.
And that's where the rubber hits the road. Once a medium size country accepts a de facto merger of its defence policy with the policy of a much larger one, and all the more so with the United States which is an empire, it becomes very difficult for the former to maintain an independent foreign policy. Its national sovereignty risks being forever diminished and compromised.
Many Canadians justly fear that the kind of "Deep Integration" that is being planned and promoted in relative secrecy could lead to the abandonment of an independent Canadian foreign policy (http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/menu-en.aspx), the loss of independence of the Canadian Armed forces, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces) and the loss of national control over Canada's national resources (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference), forcing Canada to abandon the economic rents over its oil and gas reserves, but also over its water and its hydroelectric power.
Some even fear that the next big step would be the abandonment of the Canadian dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_dollar), in favor of the U.S. dollar, and the loss of independent monetary and fiscal policies. If this is not the case, where are the safeguards for Canada's sovereignty and independence? What are the democratic foundations of such an enlarged political union? What are the political and economic costs relative to the expected economic gains? There exists no study to my knowledge that evaluates these overall questions in order to form the basis for an enlightened public debate.
Therefore, we have to conclude that the plan for a very "Deep Integration" of Canada within North America is basically flawed, if not fundamentally democratically subversive. There has been no thorough public debate on the issue, even though the minority Harper government would certainly have to consult and persuade Canadians before tabling any special legislation that would need to be enacted before the project could be implemented.
Such a public debate has not taken place yet. On the contrary, everything seems to have been planned to keep it away from the public eye with all discussions being held behind closed doors. This should be enough to raise suspicions, even though the ongoing discussions are not yet legally binding. In a more or less near future, however, the ad hoc arrangements so discussed are likely to lead to a new formal agreement or even a new treaty between the three countries. This is presently denied, but the logic of the operation militates in favor of the last option.
I personally think the issue is of such paramount importance that sooner or later we need a countrywide referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Canada)on the entire "Deep Integration" project. A general election is not sufficient to settle such a complicated issue, because a single political party can gather a minority of votes and squeeze into power between numerous opposition parties. No fundamental democratic legitimacy for such an important political project can be obtained through a general election. For that, a special national referendum would be required so that the sovereign people can decide.

[medicinal]

Pisshead: Although you do post some interesting material, it is entirely too long and time consuming to be readable. If you could find a way to condense it, it would get a lot more attention. I do feel you make some valid points, but no-one is reading them as the volumn is beyond the average attention span.

[pisshead]

geez...don't people read anymore? this is nothing...

if people give a shit about becoming a north american union without a bill of rights or constitution, then they'll read it...if they don't, they won't...

in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing...it would take at most 10 minutes...