Anyone who says it'll work itself out isn't looking far enough into the future.

. . . or the past.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Key phrase: under the SPP.  No, the SPP doesn't do any of those things, but does it lay the groundwork for those things to come later?

It's just like when people defend Patriot Act II or the Military Commissions Act, they say, well these things aren't being used to infringe on the rights of innocent Americans, they are being used to fight terrorism.  That -may- be true under the current administration. . . but who is to say that some future administration won't use these same provisions of law to enforce tyranny?  Americans seem to have this strange fantasy which says "That could never happen here!"  Why not?  People forget that fascist regimes and dictatorships very rarely come into power through a show of force, but are usually elected by the people who have been lied to about the true intentions of such political leaders.

Just in case people haven't seen the official website:

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

Like someone mentioned earlier, it's been in the works for a while.
A bunch of bigwigs from US, Canada, Mexico all met in Banff last month to further plans.

$$  the amero...
ya...
just when I thought the Canadian dollar was making a comeback!!!

ahahahaha

Check out the 'myth vs facts' link - it's my favourite part - go disinfo compaign go!!

It's received absolutely no coverage in Canadian media except for indy media sources.

The Canadian Action Party actually called regional MPs on it and received only ridicule and question in return -

I just got this link in my mailbox that I feel compelled to share.  It is from the Montana senatorial debate on the 9th of this month.  This clip is of Stan Jones' closing speech where he specifically talks about the plans already in progress for the North American Union.  The entire debate can be found on C-SPAN's site here.

Regardless of what anybody's opinion of this matter is, I think it is imperative that it be discussed openly and that as many people as possible be made aware of it now before any formal agreements are announced.

Sorry if I was jumping to conclusions teno.
And yeah, birth rate does tend to go down when standard of living goes up, so who knows.  I will readily admit that most of my argument was based on personal preference (but isn't that usually the way with argument, pick a stance you like, and then find the logic to back it up).  The other thing is, I feel we have passed some major "tipping points."  We have already rocked the boulder loose, it just has yet to pick up enough momentum for people to stop denying it.  I don't see how anything short of divine (or extraterrestrial) intervention is going to save our civilization.  Once again, this is undoubtedly colored by the fact that this is an overall positive development in my eyes.  I am so glad I am alive to see this though, cause no matter what happens, its going to be one hell of a ride (hopefully not too literally).

I think it is more than physical evidence that leads me to this view too, too many prophecies, which have been remarkably accurate up to this point (inka, hopi, mayan) all say that after the first "world turning upside down" (invasion of the white man) a second will follow (age of purification, etc).  That alone wouldn't phase me (much), but it is so well backed up by the science.  The other (and probably the largest) influence in that regard is Hank Wesselman.  Beginning in the mid 80's he started having spontaneous shamanic journeys in which he found himself in the body of a Hawaiian 250 generations in the future (he describes this in the book "Spiritwalker".  Through him (he was inside mind and body, so language wasn't a barrier), he learned that the Hawaiians had legends of the "time of contact" in which "americans" came to the islands, bringing many fantastic technological marvels, along with new plants, animals, and people from all over the world.  Then, after about 10 generations, they dissappeared, and all the fancy machines stopped working.  Voila, massive social unrest, famine and disease were followed by a drastic rise in sea level (way way way beyond what most scientists are predicting, but duh, every time they learn something new about global warming, they revise their estimates upwards, and they still don't take feedback loops into account, let alone the end of global dimming when industry collapses).  After a couple hundred generations, they managed to send a colony over to america to find out what happened to the people.  The San Joaquin Valley is an inland sea, and the land is covered in rainforest that resembles the Amazon.  No people, until they reach the great basin (which is more savannah then), where they find a people that call themselves the Ennu.  Sound familiar?  Sounds a lot like Inuit.  So there you have it, North America is in for it, unless you get to the arctic or Hawaii (and even then its gonna be rough).

Now, I loved montalks timeline dynamics article (that's how I found this forum actually) and it makes sense that future time travel is probabilistic, but, if contact this clear (his astral body was fully there, not any fuzziness whatsoever) has been repeated so many times, doesn't that mean the the probability of that particular future is close to 1?  Has anyone else read this book?  Maybe I should give it its own thread, cause if anyone has read it, I would really love people to discuss it with (and I am getting horrendously off topic now).

I certainly understand fully the concepts concerning negative thoughts.  Working with these concepts is part of the path for those that can see the path and choose to take it.  Unfortunately, most people aren't privvy to these concepts and realizations.  They would need to be educated and then they too can make an actual choice on what to do next.

Yes, I understand that level of "true power".  No, I have not seen the tracker.  Currently, we all compromise in order to get along in the world.  I don't 'fully' see that as a bad thing personally because I was willing and still am to give up some of that sovereignty for the quick spiritual growth this hard-core environement can offer.

Ah, I see it's a personal preference on your part.  On that level let me be completely honest.  I agree completely.  I would choose nature over city life in a heartbeat.  I would choose less people instead of more.  I was born in a city but I feel the connection to nature.  I feel the dampening effect concrete has on the planetary vibrations city folk can feel.  And that's just one small example of the issues facing cities as they currently are.

I don't really want billions of people either.  I don't see the necessity in it.  I wasn't thinking about personal preferences when I started posting in this thread.  I was just looking at how things are currently and following that.

If I was to create a city I could 'almost' guarantee even you would enjoy visiting.  With the supressed technology I could create a harmonious orchestra of nature, community and the more artistic creative pursuits of humanity.  No cars, concrete, steel, noise pollution, light pollution, or any of the negative aspects associated with cities of today.  Without financial concerns of property value there would be no need for cubed high rise coffins people put up with today.  Ironically though, having created such a city I would probably choose not to actually live there anyway.  Nor would I choose to live in the country.  I would live in transit.  I would travel and experience as much as possible.  That's my true preference.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you (tenetnosce) are from a city (or suburbs, or even a small town), and therefore never really had a close connection with nature, and so don't understand what you would be missing.

The view from my back yard.

But anyway,  I'm not saying that endless urban sprawl, megacities, and unbridled technological development is desireable.  I'm just saying that you are assuming that free energy would lead to that.  You may be right, but that is just one possible scenario.

The birth rate need not necessarily go up just because free energy is available, it may in fact go down.

So, to sum it up, if free energy exists, I am all for TPTB suppressing it.  Yeah, they are doing SOMETHING good for the planet and humanity.  Not only that, we already have the capability of connecting to the infinite, and what is that if not free energy.  Why develop external devices for that when we could journey within for far more exciting possibilities than anything a megacity could offer, and then return to this realm to live in the bounty and cradling embrace of Gaia?  Why should we try to bypass her when she already offers us so much for free? 

On second thought free energy would be fine, as long as all those cities were built on some other planet (why not, if the energy was free, what do you need to burden this planet for?).  I'm not saying I don't like people, I love people, and love interacting and learning from them.  I just love everything else in nature just as much, and don't think humans should have such a large share of the planet. 
I guess the megacities could work if they had free energy and didn't destroy the surrounding environment, provided that most people would want to live in them and not bother the few of us roughing it out in the boonies.  The problem is, I can't imagine people choosing city life that have had an honest choice.  Most people move to cities because they want money (basically, though there are many variations on this single theme).  Then their descendants then stay there for the same reason or because they have never experienced a connection to nature and therefore don't value it or understand what nature has to offer compared to nightclubs, restaurants and shopping malls (that and they like to denigrate and stereotype country folk as "simple" because they don't have all the layers of ego bs that are required for city life).  If we lived in a spiritually advanced society, people would live in abundance regardless of the amount of physical energy available, because they would realize they don't NEED anything, and the end of desire is the beginning of freedom.

All that being said, I have lived in cities and enjoyed it immensely, they can be a lot of fun, but nothing compares to the serenity and joy that comes from living off the land.

Now, for z3n3rg, what I meant when I said we abdicate our sovereignty (usually unknowingly, granted) is that we do so by listening to the negative thoughts planted in our head, instead of watching and laughing at the antics of the powerless, fearful, pathetic creatures that are putting them there.  We abdicate our sovereignty when we let the horrible and cruel things happening all around us get in the way of our spiritual growth.  We effectively hand them the reins in little ways like this all the time.  Yes, when we choose survival over death (or some other unpleasant possibility, like prison), when it means comprimising our principles or going against what we know to be right.  Have you seen the movie the tracker?  My favorite scene in the movie is when the Aboriginal tracker refuses to continue on the trail without waiting for the wounded member of the party, even when the leader repeatly whips him and then points a gun to his head.  THAT is true power.

Other than that, I understand where you're coming from, and don't really have anything else to say.  I may not agree fully, but that is probably because I don't WANT a world with billions of people, so I don't see any point in envisioning how to work it out.

Do you have any examples of a large scale civilization that was harmonious and benevolent, cause I'd like to hear them.

You know quite well that we don't have valid verifiable information on other civilizations.  Can't use that as a valid counter-point.

That senario presented was used to provoke wider-scale thought.  There was nothing in that particular post relating at all to my view of a workable structure.  That was taken out of context.

How much of our brain do we use again?

It seems you use this study to resign yourself that humans don't have very much capacity.  I can't agree.  Plus it doesn't require the ability to cognate more than 150 people to get along with your neighbors.

Depends entirely on exactly when the civilation collapses and how long it actually takes for Earth to heal itself.  Both variables are unknown.  So I was incorrect in stating it as an absolute.  Neither of us can trully know.  I was wrong to even make that a point.

Just because I can see a way to fix civilization at a macro-scale as it stands today does not mean I don't see things as they are.  Quite the contrary.  Again, that senario was used to provoke wider angle thought.  You seem to have taken it as me being in la la land thinking about "if I ruled the world" and leaving reality out of the picture.  Just because I say something doesn't mean I'm ignoring something that I didn't mention.

It has nothing to do with me getting deep control over the planet.  It was to provoke thought about how to fix things as they are now, in reality.  The future is open.  The odds are certainly in favor of civilization's collapse but it's not a given until it happens.

Also, I'm not arguing in favor of cities as they are currently structured.  Because cities suck now doesn't mean all cities have to.

This was what I was responding to with my initial post on this thread.  My answer was Councils.  I accept that you don't see that working.

Abdicate by choosing survival over death?  Abdicate by choosing to incarnate in 3d?  What level are speaking from?  Are you saying that I'm making excuses for humanity at large?  That I'm saying we are not responsible just because I understand how we are controlled?  It's not a one or the other thing here.  It's a scale.  Weight being on both sides.

I didn't say that nor was it inferred.  In the same respect, technology can work hand in hand with a spiritually advanced 3d society.  So yes I agree that technology isn't necessary.  And I see another angle as well.

Please stop inferring that I'm blaming everything on something else.  I'm not doing that.

I see councils, education, and release of technology for the betterment of humanity as being 'some' of the major components that could possibly achieve a harmonious society of 7 billion humans.  I can understand if you don't agree with that.  But it seems that you actually do in a general respect.  You said "Either humans must become the integrated, aware beings that all of us potentially are".  I'm proposing that they can be taught that.

Let me make it clear once more that I understand that with the current leaders any such integration is impossible.  But it is not out of the realm of possibility for that leadership to change if we were to get help in removing the leaders above them.  To keep that possibility in mind is not concentrating only on that possibility and ignoring reality.

As I was driving around this afternoon, I was thinking a lot about the impact of free energy on this whole scenario.  That's one thing that would change everything.  Then I was thinking, maybe it would just be like slamming your foot down on the accelerator in your car.  True, the faster you go, the easier it is for a small mistake to result in catastrophe.  On the other hand, just because a car can get up over 120 mph doesn't meet that everybody drives around with their right foot jammed to the floor.

Which lead to the questions of how self-destructive people really are, and where that characteristic comes from.  Are humans self-destructive?  Yes, absolutely.  I don't think anybody is gonna argue that one.

But are humans inherently self-destructive?  That's a different question.  I tend to think that, left to their own devices, humans do not self-destruct, and they do not destroy each other.

I think humanity suffers from a disease of hyperdimensional parasitisation, and just like any good parasite, these things are experts at hiding out undetected, and causing symptoms which make it appear like something else is going on.

But a good parasite doesn't kill its host unless absolutely "necessary", it only drains life force from it. . . so then I'm thinking just maybe, free energy would just bring us to the edge, magnify everything, and actually make the parasites more obvious and easier to detect. 

Just like worms living in somebody's gut, they can only exist if the body is in an energetically depressed state.  If it were possible to plug a body into an electrical outlet and recharge it to full power, those bugs would be out of there in a heartbeat.  They can't live in a healthy system, only in a diseased one.

In any case, there's something about free energy which is clearly threatening to TPTBs, and maybe the fear that we have of destroying ourselves with it is simply the projection of their fear that we will destroy them.

Which raises the next point:  overpopulation.

Well, is overpopulation really a threat?  If humans continue to live the way we do then yes.  Yet the way we live is based almost entirely on the false belief that there is not enough.  (It's amazing how much of the crap in the world comes down to that one thing).

Free energy flies in the face of the very belief patterns that create the system we live in.  People are not born with scarcity consciousness, it is acquired through our interaction with the external world, and especially with second-order beings that prey upon us.

The system that we are talking about feeds off of the surplus of resources created by the "not enough" mentality.  There's not enough time.  Not enough money.  Not enough jobs.  Not enough food.  Not enough sex.  And on and on and on.  "Not enough" IS the attachment, or parasite, itself.

I'll throw the idea out there that the Earth is capable of supporting orders of magnitude more life that in currently does.  All we need to do is stop believing in "not enough" and all of our exploitative self-destructive behaviors that serve these negative agendas fall by the wasteside.

When there is enough, there is no reason to fight.  There is no reason to stay in a crappy relationship, or job, for fear that nothing better will ever come along.  There is no reason to have to have a $2.5 million dollar house and a $50,000 car to feel secure in the world.  There is no reason to squabble over who gets to live on a piece of land that isn't worth a damn anyway.

Free energy allows each individual to become less dependent on the system.  Good for individuals.  Bad for parasites.

So what if there are a trillion people on the planet if free energy allows us to not only live in areas which we normally wouldn't live (including the massive oceans), but to be able to do that in a way which doesn't negatively impact the whole. 

The rest of life on earth will finally be able to do whatever it wants without humans needing to cut trees, kill animals. and dig up rocks, in order to survive.  Survival could be guaranteed without the need for humans to prey on other life, which just might close the door for hyperdimensional parasites to prey on us.

People could then finally stop having to spend so much of their lives worshipping the false gods of survival and get on to true spiritual development.  Maybe our souls would start deciding that we really don't need to live 100 years to get what we want out of physical life, and then we can accomplish the same in, say 20 years.  Long life might become highly unfashionable!

Ultimately, we don't know what would happen if free energy were to become available, but I think we can take a pretty good guess at what will happen if it doesn't.

I'd be willing to take the chance.

Also, let me add one more quote about the whole issue of humans and cities:

So once again, you can't blame everything on the outside forces (unless you blame them for the advent of civilization, which is in all honesty probable).  It is in the structure of our civilization (or any civilization).  So there are two choices (if you want a peaceful and harmonious culture).  Either humans must become the integrated, aware beings that all of us potentially are, or we go back to a traditional cultural structure that naturally brings out the best in us.  All I know is that the first one is out of my control, but the second definitely is not (provided that this society collapses, of course).