Ameros???

[Steppenwolf]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...00958565&hl=es

This was sent to me from a friend who is not really into politics . To me it sounds like one of the biggest hoax ever , but oh well ... Someone here knows this guy?

[jack_the_knife]

Sounds like a hoax but I suppose we'll see : /

[Mealla]

I don't know for sure, but I have heard rumors of a merge of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico similar to the European Union. One of my exes is really into conspiracy theories, and he told me they do already have a United North America logo on the back of North Carolina licenses where he lives.

Some of the video sounds like crap, but I do believe they're working towards a North American Union of some sort. Don't really have proof other than what my ex said about the back of NC licenses, but logically it makes sense. Our borders are practically dissolving anyway as far as Canada and Mexico are concerned.

[Saya]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

That coin he has, debunked, a guy has been making them for years.

I know Mexico supports the idea, but it would cause too many problems for Canada to get on board with it. For one we have very low debt, wheras America has a large amount of debt, we wouldn't be willing to sacrifice our advantage so that America can get out of its debt. Secondly, that means that we would have to have one central bank and all three countries would lose some autonomy. We have a very different system here than what you have down there. And of course there is no support with anglophones, Quebec a few years ago showed a majority supported the idea. Canadians are quite adverse to the idea of sharing with America

[Draconysius]

It probably will happen, but it won't stop until every nation is united. One world government, one world religion and no Christians allowed.

[Utho]

According to my sources, the project "Amero" is at this point equal to the "Ecu", the forgotten pre-decessor of the Euro. A "paperchild", designed to tackle the mathematical problems of adapting the economies of the countries that are supposed to merge.

@Saya
Canada would loose much more than simply its solid currency, if the concept of the "American Union" would come true.
Maybe Canada will go the way of the UK, taking an associated position - but I fear not.
The forces that would be acting on Canada to join would be grave.
The far I know, there is quite some sorta trade-union between the US,Canada and Mexico; which benefits Canada quite a lot. This is s th that can be used as a measure of coercion, because an exclusion from this free-trade zone would mean a de facto exclusion from american markets and from cheap imports from these regions. That´s one way to artificially create a recession in a prosperous country.



From the sociological viewpoint, the EU-phenomenon is a highly astonishing thing.
European history is a patchwork of France, England and Germany doing each other. Not a village without a war memorial from one - long past - war.
The last of these is still remembered by people that lived through it.
Germans, that were cannon-fodder of their weird govt in a strange war, and that were firebombed by the liberators.
French, that were invaded and had to endure occupation by their arch-enemy - and that were bombed excessively by their liberators while being liberated.
And not to forget all them smaller countries, that always were the victims, when the european big bullies had s th to settle, or when the "balance of power" had to be secured.

And now, I could technically drive from Gibraltar to the russian border, without being stopped once. I could use familiar money - and compare prices. Very much of a gain from the past, when you needed to show your passports every few hundred kilometres - not mentionig all the other crap.
That´s quite a thing, bearing in mind that "our" grandfathers tried to splatter each others brains with a mix of tradition and heartfelt conviction.


This emotionally sensitive legacy has been overcome by the unification-interests - and it won´t go "Yugoslavia" for quite a while.
Thus I see kinda dark for Canadas future. Many of you will probably see it happening in your lifetime.

BTW - St. Obama/Mr. Emanuel seem to be very fond of the views of a certain Zbiginiev Brzezinski. This guy is one, with what you could call "a record". He is an ardent protagonist of a consequent globalisation. - Scary guy.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That guy is a white supremacist. Everything he says is bullshit.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Is the front of his coin the profile a guy sitting on a toilet?

[ThreeEyesOni]

Originally Posted by Utho

BTW - St. Obama/Mr. Emanuel seem to be very fond of the views of a certain Zbiginiev Brzezinski. This guy is one, with what you could call "a record". He is an ardent protagonist of a consequent globalisation. - Scary guy.

1. Why is it that only the people that dislike Obama ever call him a "Saint" or make reference to such a thing? I have yet to meet a Democrat that has anything near that kind of feelings for the man, but every other Republican tosses that arround. Maybe it's a conservative/christian thing, where the "Saint" bit makes allusions to him being a "false prophet/idol"? A little something extra to swing the religious vote?

2. That guy is, in a nutshell, a crazy bastard. However, many proponents of globalization have mixed feelings on a conquest form; mainly because it's the only way that globalization will ever come about in out lifetimes. It's a "do the ends justify the means" kind of argument, and ironically many humanitarianistic/jaded folk feel that this isn't quite so unlikely of an idea.

Scary, ain't it?

[Despanan]

If you ever watch that batshit crazy movie Zeitgeist* they talk about the Amero, just before they talk about Bush secretly signing over the sovereignty of the US to Canada and Mexico in order to put in place a one-world government that controls us all through computer chips implanted in our brains.

So yeah. Not exactly reputable.

*Warning, don't watch Zeitgeist unless you hate your brain and want it to run away.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

If you ever watch that batshit crazy movie Zeitgeist* they talk about the Amero, just before they talk about Bush secretly signing over the sovereignty of the US to Canada and Mexico in order to put in place a one-world government that controls us all through computer chips implanted in our brains.

So yeah. Not exactly reputable.

*Warning, don't watch Zeitgeist unless you hate your brain and want it to run away.

A pox on you for ever mentioning Zeitgeist!

@Utho, yeah it would be pretty bad for Canada, and thats why I severely doubt anyone here would support the idea, most seem very adverse to it. I can see this happening with the US and Mexico, but if the Canadian government were to ever do it there would be riots.

[Utho]

@ThreeEyesOni
Indeed I chose this term in order to express my doubts about the "2nd-Lincoln", the media is portaying him as.
Two years ago none knew this guy and now he is "emperor of the world" - everybody has big hopes attached to this guy that appeared like the rabbit from the hat. (Compare Brzezinskis books and his definition of the US president as emperor.)

In my eyes, Obama is a tragic example of how far the art of "PR" has come.

In 1928 Edward Bernays (the inventor of the word "PR") opened his famous book "Propaganda" with the following sentence:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society."

This guy created the PR-department of the US administration, and it still runs on principles that are derived from Bernays theses.
(Josef Goebbels had all of his books.)

Bearing this in mind, Obama seems very much like a "rabbit" to me - and more focus goes on the ppl that are his closest council.

And "Saint" - because the title is one of the most hollow ones, I could think of. It´s like "hero". But it better describes the fact that this magic rabbit manages to get ppl cryin in the streets, just because of the hopes invested in him. - He is the "good cop", promising hard times.


With your other point you touched a sensitive topic; I see what you mean.
In short, I´d say that not every aim could justify every measure; but where to draw the line seems to me a fairly philosophical question that would require consideration of many things.
And for globalisation, well I guess it could have a beneficial point for the ppl on this planet. Just like christianity or communism could - but - it´ll probably turn out as crappy as the other experiments.


@Despanan
Zeitgeist is terribly cool, but that doesn´t make it credible. This thing is a flashy presentation, that could deserve an Oscar in its segment.
In my eyes it is a well designed piece of "psy-op" - aimed at the christian (right) and the esoteric communities.
It employs all measures the literature recommends for stuff targeting ppl that are prone to believing in weird stuff, including elements like the creative use of cited sources and the appeal to "truths" that are emotionally pleasant to the targeted group.
A person that believes in an omnipresent/omnipotent god that watches all their deeds would/can be made to believe anything - if the message is delivered the right way.
(Religion with some sort of higher being involved seems to me very much like an unresolved parent-complex. This deficit makes ppl pretty receptive to comforting beliefs/illusions.)


@Saya
No pox for me, pls

When it comes to the question of what I see as the major forces to contradict the unification in Canada, I always tend to think of the french seperatist movement. They seemed pretty stubborn, but I lost track of it over the past years. No idea where this stands at this moment.
I am just not overwhelmingly optimistic, when judging for the long term.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Utho

@Despanan
Zeitgeist is terribly cool, but that doesn´t make it credible. This thing is a flashy presentation, that could deserve an Oscar in its segment.

An Oscar? Are you out of your fucking mind? The editing is sloppy, the visuals are painful, and nearly 90% of the thing is plagiarized from other conspiracy films.

Part 1 is "The God that wasn't"

Part 2 is "Loose Change" (and by this I don't mean, they used Loose change as an inspiration, or even copied loose change, I mean they took "Loose Change" and put it into their own movie directly)

Part 3 is a hodgepodge of other conspiracy theories. I recall hearing that it too, was mostly taken from another conspiracy film. I foget the name though.

The rest of it is poorly drawn animation and Plagiarized George Carlin routines and clips from the movie "Network".

It's poorly constructed and hard on the eyes to boot. Ridiculous content aside you'd have to be a total retard to fall for it on presentation alone. Sadly, I have met a few of those retards...

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Utho

No pox for me, pls

When it comes to the question of what I see as the major forces to contradict the unification in Canada, I always tend to think of the french seperatist movement. They seemed pretty stubborn, but I lost track of it over the past years. No idea where this stands at this moment.
I am just not overwhelmingly optimistic, when judging for the long term.

Fine, I won't give you a pox but I can say that almost everything in Zeitgeist was a lie, it was complete fabricated bullshit, and yes they had "sources" but all of them are debunked. That shit about Jesus being just like Horus was baloney, Horus was never crucified, never died at all and never resurrected. He wasn't born of a virgin, Isis had sex with his dead father's body. He wasn't born in December, he was born in August. I'd like to find the person who spread that rumour about Horus around and slap him silly. They also listed other gods, none of which had any similarities either! I could go on for hours and hours about it but there's already a site that comletely debunks everything.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

/rant

Anyway, the french seperatist movement isn't very strong anymore, although Bloc Quebecois is still popular, they are more focused on representing Quebec than seperating from Canada. There's still a lot of bad sentiment against the rest of Canada, but honestly we get that here too, lots of Newfies say they would like to seperate XD

[ThreeEyesOni]

Originally Posted by Utho

@ThreeEyesOni
Indeed I chose this term in order to express my doubts about the "2nd-Lincoln", the media is portaying him as.
Two years ago none knew this guy and now he is "emperor of the world" - everybody has big hopes attached to this guy that appeared like the rabbit from the hat. (Compare Brzezinskis books and his definition of the US president as emperor.)

In my eyes, Obama is a tragic example of how far the art of "PR" has come.

In 1928 Edward Bernays (the inventor of the word "PR") opened his famous book "Propaganda" with the following sentence:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society."

This guy created the PR-department of the US administration, and it still runs on principles that are derived from Bernays theses.
(Josef Goebbels had all of his books.)

Bearing this in mind, Obama seems very much like a "rabbit" to me - and more focus goes on the ppl that are his closest council.

And "Saint" - because the title is one of the most hollow ones, I could think of. It´s like "hero". But it better describes the fact that this magic rabbit manages to get ppl cryin in the streets, just because of the hopes invested in him. - He is the "good cop", promising hard times.


With your other point you touched a sensitive topic; I see what you mean.
In short, I´d say that not every aim could justify every measure; but where to draw the line seems to me a fairly philosophical question that would require consideration of many things.
And for globalisation, well I guess it could have a beneficial point for the ppl on this planet. Just like christianity or communism could - but - it´ll probably turn out as crappy as the other experiments.

Well, what politicians can you recognize from two years ago period? Or even better, what politicians in power now were you aware of two years before they ran for office? Generally none; politics is a pretty cutthroat business and there's really no such thing as a "slow-rising star" in politics. This is is especially true when someone goes from regional to country-wide politics like he and many others have done.

This was a strange run for president by historical standards. Shrub the Lesser has managed to fuck up the country and the world up badly enough that I think a lot more people are aware of how drastically a president can screw with our lives and the world beyond. Because of that this election really was "Bush vs The Newcomers". People are also paying more attention with the staff being hired than before because even lowly little "Turd Blossom" managed to stir up shit and he was really not much more than a glorified personal assistant.

Every president has caused people to tweak for them. Even Shrub the Lesser would still get an impromptu parade from some people. So really I don't see much more of that here than can be explained away by how freaking desperate some people have gotten with fear that things will keep getting driven into the ground.

Obama is far from perfect, and I'm sure he's going to screw up. A lot. But he's got a pretty well-seasoned staff and frankly if he tries to go too far back on his promises then we'll probably get the open civil war that many theorists have voiced odds on.

[Utho]

@Despanan
It is exactly them annoying cuts that make the thing so special. It is the first production of this kind to employ the short-take technique excessively; where it is hard to consciouly register and process the individual shots. This is designed to deliver an emotional message.

Wanna see real crap? Invest in a bucket of popcorn and a lasting stash of your favourite recreational drug, dedicate an evening - and check google video for "ring of power". When Zeitgeist gets you going like this, Ring of power should serve you with an entertaining time.


@Saya
Could it be I misled you? - By using the term of "creative use of sources" I refered to the meaning of "bringing sources into being". - Nice talk for "bullshit".


So, I won´t contradict you a bit on this. The thing is quite a whopper, that´s why I like it so much. I specialized in propaganda long ago, and this thing is clearly drafted to deliver a profoundly "designed" message.
The handywork that went into this thing is huge. I admire the spin-doctor that really fabricated this one. - Honestly I envy the bastard that did it for his (educational) resources.
In many years, I never found anything quite like it.
Zeitgeist has all indications for a totally new kinda PR/propaganda. - But I won´t bore you with the details of this.


@ThreeEyesOni
Sorry to contradict, but the "rabbit from the hat" is not the only way a democracy can run. In many countries politicians are required to have a public record , before daring to run for the highest office. - But indeed, I see the trend changing in europe as well. Maybe in some 10 yrs. or so europe will have adapted.
You wrote:
...I think a lot more people are aware of how drastically a president can screw with our lives and the world beyond. - I am an outsider, so I can´t judge this. Do you think it is more intense than in the time of Vietnam, when there was the soviet-threat as well? - Hard for me to compare.

"Shrub the lesser" (haven´t heard that one before) creates a heritage, one should have wished upon the reps. Now Obama has (almost) inherited the really remarkable deficit, several questionable wars, and an encyclopedia of other problems.

I wonder how it´ll go. As mentioned, I am not really a fan of the school of thought that is represented by Brzezinski, and Rahm Emanuel is ... well he seems quite bright to me, and a nasty sob. Still need to do my homework on him, but s th tells me that this won´t make me like him much.

[Utho]

Originally Posted by Saya

...we get that here too, lots of Newfies say they would like to seperate XD

May I ask: Dominantly frenchys, or "genuine" anglophonic seperatism?

And, please excuse the curiosity, but what see the "ppl on the street" as potential benefits of a seperation?

I ask, because seperatistic movements or ideas are of special interest to me, because of the obscure emotional values that are involved.

[ThreeEyesOni]

Originally Posted by Utho

@ThreeEyesOni
Sorry to contradict, but the "rabbit from the hat" is not the only way a democracy can run. In many countries politicians are required to have a public record , before daring to run for the highest office. - But indeed, I see the trend changing in europe as well. Maybe in some 10 yrs. or so europe will have adapted.
You wrote:
...I think a lot more people are aware of how drastically a president can screw with our lives and the world beyond. - I am an outsider, so I can´t judge this. Do you think it is more intense than in the time of Vietnam, when there was the soviet-threat as well? - Hard for me to compare.

"Shrub the lesser" (haven´t heard that one before) creates a heritage, one should have wished upon the reps. Now Obama has (almost) inherited the really remarkable deficit, several questionable wars, and an encyclopedia of other problems.

I wonder how it´ll go. As mentioned, I am not really a fan of the school of thought that is represented by Brzezinski, and Rahm Emanuel is ... well he seems quite bright to me, and a nasty sob. Still need to do my homework on him, but s th tells me that this won´t make me like him much.

I actually rather like Rahm. He's everything I want in a politician: brutally honest, sharp wit, not too overly impressed with office (in the sense that he doesn't see why he should bend over for someone just because they hold office), and a huge fucking asshole. I don't trust polite politicians; it's one of the first things that I didn't like about Obama, but nowadays I think that he's only polite because he thinks that's how he should be and knows that is what is expected of a president. I wouldn't like him personally, but that really isn't a concern as far as his professionalism goes; he's a little too war-happy, but likely wise enough to know this is not the time.

Now, for the sad news: America isn't a democracy. Well, not really. It's closer to being a fascist state with democratic designs. The people don't really elect the president; the electoral collage is specifically designed so that the popular vote means jack and shit. "Representative Democracy" has become a thinly stretched term. It worked pretty well until the '20s or '30s, but ever since the '70s the failings have been pretty well exploited. Anyway, that's kinda off from your point.

I think that the US is somewhat in a state of political transition. Or at least "politician transition". Many of the long-time no-term-limit positions have been held by folks for decades (like the "internet is a series of tubes" guy from Alaska who recently became a multiple felon and then voted out of office; he was there 40 years), and they're just dieing out. What we have here is a bunch of old white guys that are running out of spare livers, and a bunch of younger folk (by "young" I mean "40").

Anyways, I got distracted after writing that bit and am dog tired. I'd prefer not to go babbling about politics when I'm likely to make a gaff myself. :P

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Utho

May I ask: Dominantly frenchys, or "genuine" anglophonic seperatism?

And, please excuse the curiosity, but what see the "ppl on the street" as potential benefits of a seperation?

I ask, because seperatistic movements or ideas are of special interest to me, because of the obscure emotional values that are involved.

Newfoundland doesn't have a very large French population, infact its very tiny. We joined Canada in 1949, and it was a very contested decision. It has a lot to do was since we joined Canada people feel we've been taken advantage of, we have a massive hydro plant in Labrador called Churchill Falls but the deal is that when the electricity runs through Quebec, its Quebec who ends up with the profit, not us. Previously our economy was dependant on fisheries, and the cod population is down, and a lot of blame gets placed on the fact that foreign fishing boats used trawlers and overfished before our coastline was expanded. Newfoundland is one of the poorer provinces, however we now have Hibernia, a massive offshore oil rig, and we've been fighting for our share, the Federal government wants a larger cut than we want to let them. Its a lot more complicated than that, but the Newfoundland Republic became popular after the Atlantic Accord talks between the former Prime Minister Paul Martin and our Premier Danny Williams, which outlined exactly how much money we'd be making from Hibernia. Before this Danny Williams was absolutely hated after a nasty strike we had, so basically to boost his popularity he made a big stink over it even when Paul Martin agreed to everything, and told all Newfoundland government buildings to remove their Canadian flags, instead a lot of people ran up the Newfoundland Republic flag. Anyway we got what we wanted, Danny won his popularity and no one trusts the Federal government, especially now that Stephen Harper is in and he wishes to undo a lot of critical points on the Atlantic Accord. We signed a new deal a few months ago but it'll be years before we see the money promised to us, and is dependant on the fact that then oil was expensive, now that the price of oil is dropping I doubt we'll ever see the money owed to us.

Sorry thats a bit long, but thats as condensed as I could make it ^_^ And people who live in rural communities tend to be more hateful towards the Federal government, in the city its fine but outside where most people are tradesmen and fishermen, they get hit the hardest in bad times, a lot of people are going away to work in Alberta now. And I should mention (if you didn't know) that the province has an island part (Newfoundland) and a mainland part (Labrador). I'm not sure what the sentiment of Labrador is, but they have their problems too with the Federal government as a large population of them are Inuit and Metis.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Utho

@Despanan
It is exactly them annoying cuts that make the thing so special. It is the first production of this kind to employ the short-take technique excessively; where it is hard to consciouly register and process the individual shots. This is designed to deliver an emotional message.

Wanna see real crap? Invest in a bucket of popcorn and a lasting stash of your favourite recreational drug, dedicate an evening - and check google video for "ring of power". When Zeitgeist gets you going like this, Ring of power should serve you with an entertaining time.

Wait...so it's technique is to suck horribly? Isn't that kinda like that one guy on Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist that they trained wrong as a joke, and thus his fighting style involved running into punches and kicks?

That movie is really employing the cinematic (and I use that term loosely) version of the "Face to Fist" Technique?

WOW.

[Utho]

@ThreeEyesOni
Politicians appearing "brutally honest" or as I´d put it "brutally straight" hit a bad note with me. Being german, and being into analysis of political structures, the last brutally straight politician I have in mind caused quite a fucking mess.
This, plus the fact that the guy seems dangerously bright and "abgewichst" - make me see him with a sense of nasty things to come.

I see Mr Emanuel a bit like Mr Alan Dershovitz. Frighteningly intelligent and clever, but morally highly questionable.


Democracy - I share your view on what is internationally called "American Democracy". Most of europe runs the very same way. I blame the art of PR, or otherwise the primitivity of what the father of mass-psychology Wilfred Trotter called "the herd"


@Saya
Big thanks for taking the time for this detailed introduction to the situation of the separatist background in Newfoundland!I learnt quite a lot, I never encountered before.
You gave me a very unique view on a topic of interest.


@Despanan
Them repeated sequences where rapidly changing visuals, combined with "intense" accoustic stimuli, are arranged between remarkably long parts of "lack of vocal commentary" are designed in order to allow the "commited" viewer to absorb the message more directly (via the visuals).

There is a follow-up of it, which shows a refinement of style - and a switch in the direction of argument. (They mostly skip the thing with all the esoteric crap.)
I´d guess the makers took feedback from the internet-discussion about their work - and refinded it in a way that adapts the second part much more to what you name as "emotionally disturbing".

But would you allow me to ask ya s th?
Both we know that this thing can work on people that watch it, why - do you think - did it piss you off so much? (Supposing the "debunking" came after watching the thing.)