We are on our last legs of a sovereign nation. The recent laws changing to restrict our freedom and ability to speak, to gather and to question will not be restricted to 'fringe' people for much longer. The global wars will only escalate if truth is not adopted now. If you are going to speak for us, then now is the time. Most people who know about the SPP , also know that like the other Free Trades, Liberals and Conservatives endorsed both although both criticized them when it wasn't their deal. It does not matter anymore who is to blame. What matters is who will resolve the situation, and none can do it alone. No one party will bring us democracy. Party's are a system which works well for the parties however democracy means 'the people as government' and that is where this solution must begin.
We are truly seeing the end of Canada as we have known it. Many Canadians have not one clue as to what is happening. The infiltration of protest groups by the police which was caught on video is certainly a crack in the armour, but I suspect that it will be used as a diversion. As we demand an investigation into the protesters(provocateurs), we focus less on what was really going on behind the little fortress. We cannot afford such distractions.
I think the questions need to be asked, 'Why did these little men, want a diversion? Why did they want violence on the streets? Why did the PM suggest the protest was 'sad' due to its lack of numbers? Why did taxpayers have to foot the bill for this fortress in our own country?
But beyond those questions we must remind Canadians that the first Free Trade, was also done in secret and many of the signatories eventually admitted they had not read it before they signed the deal. It is not an understatement to suggest that Canadians need to hear the facts in plain English/French. Most Canadians do not even realize the implications of NAFTA, or Chapter 11 of the Free Trade, never mind the loss of control of our military, our financial system, our food, water etc etc of this SPP.
I realize that there are powerful people behind this NAU, and that they are almost realizing their dream/our nightmare; however many individual Canadians, like myself are putting our lives on the line speaking out. We do so without the protection of a political party or connections to safety; but we know that if our children and grandchildren are to live free, just as our ancestors fought for our freedom, we must make the sacrifice today!
You have the attention of many Canadians right now. The press is finally reporting something. Please for the sake of this nation do the right thing and blow this story out of the water. Please forget about egos here, forget about any desire for power, party politics, party loyalty, party ratings in the polls- none of that matters if we do not have a country. Now is the time for every single Canadian who desires to remain free, in a democratic nation to stand together and in a peaceful manner expose, enlighten and educate their fellow Canadian. I am not pledging my loyalty to the NDP; I am asking you as members of the elected parliament of Canada to stand up for the rest of us, our Constitution and our future. I believe the members of the CAP will eagerly support you bringing their motion forward, because they have stated repeatedly they do not care who does it - as long as somebody does it! Please read their statement below.
I thank you for your time. I thank you for your patriotism. Please let me know if there is something I can do to assist you. I am copying this letter to other Canadians, including other political parties, to encourage them to contact you also. After we save the nation and ensure our freedom, if you feel you need the competitiveness of a battle ground between parties, then so be it; but for now let us call a truce. Without the strength of a sovereign free Canada we have nothing to offer the world, and are incapable of dealing with any other issues.
Yours respectfully
Catherine Whelan Costen
Spokesperson for Coalition of Independent Candidates www.COIC.ca
Email forwarded from CAP:
"WE'D RATHER BE CANADIAN'
CONNIE FOGAL, Leader of the Canadian Action Party, CAP/PAC,
calls for a September 2007 MOTION of NON CONFIDENCE in the Conservative government arising out of its integration of Canada into a North American Union.
Whereas Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, President George Bush of the USA and President Vincente Fox of Mexico in Waco Texas in March 2005 entered an agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement, (S.P.P.) which intention and effect is to harmonize and integrate the three countries of Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico into a North American Union;
Whereas immediately thereafter Prime Minister Martin assigned three Liberal cabinet ministers, David Emerson, Anne MacClellan, and David Pettigrew the task of directing the institutional implementation of the integration through the executive branch of the Canadian government which ministers reported back to the leaders in June 2005 of their progress to that date;
Whereas the Conservative government of Stephen Harper recommitted to the S.P.P with President Bush and President Fox in March of 2006, and is continuing the implementation of the integration of Canada into a North American Union with the U.S.A. and Mexico;
Whereas Prime Minister Harper appointed three cabinet ministers (currently Stockwell Day, Maxime Bernier, and Peter McKay) to continue the integration through the executive branch of the Canadian government, which ministers reported back to the leaders in June 2006 of their progress to that date, and reported again in 2007;
Whereas entering and implementing the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement is an abuse of and beyond the reach of the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's executive power;
Whereas the three national leaders have adopted and submitted to a North American Competitiveness Council comprised of representatives of industry who advise and direct the Leaders and their cabinets on the institutionalization of the North American Union through the executive arm of government;
Whereas the members of the North American Competitiveness Council are:
Canada: Dominic D'Allessandro, Manulife Financial; Paul Desmarais, Jr., Power Corporation of Canada; David Ganong, Ganong Bros. Limited; Richard George, Suncor Energy; Hunter Harrison , CNR; Linda Hasenfranz, Linamar Corporation; Michael Sabia, Bell Canada; James Shepherd, Canfor Corporation; Annette Vershuren, Home Depot Canada; Richard Waugh, Bank of Nova Scotia;
U.S.A.: Campbell Soup Company, Chevron Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FedEx Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corp., Kansas City Southern, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., Mittal Steel USA, New York Life Insurance Company, The Proctor and Gamble Company, UPS, Wall-Mart Stores, Inc, Whirlpool Corporation;
Mexico: JL Barraza, President, Consejo Coordinador Empresarial and CEO Grupo Impulso, Realiza &Asociadas, Immobiliaria Realiza and Optima; G. Azcarraga, President, Consejo Mexicano de Hombres de Negocios and CEO of Mexicana de Aviacion and Grupo Posadas; L Halkin, President, Confederation de Camaras Industriales and Chairman of Board and CEO of four companies in industry and real estate; V Diez, President, Consejo Mexicano de Comercio Exterior, and former VP of Grupo Modelo; J. Yesaki, President, Consejo Nacional Agropecuario and CEO of several Poultry companies; C Gonzalez, President, Centro de Estudios Economicos del Sector Privado and CEO Kimberly-Clark de Mexico; G.Vogel, VP, TAMSA (Tubos de Acero de Mexico; C. de Anda Molina, CEO Avicar de Occidente; TG Sada, CEO Grupo CYDSA; A.M.Ceja, Presdent, Finca Montegrande
Whereas at least 30 working committees are operating at taxpayer expense implementing the agenda of the Competitiveness Council in a North American Union via the executive arm of government, which groups include officials from the Canadian government officials as well as representatives from industry, the military and academia;
Whereas taxpayer funding is being used to build transcontinental corridors, and new border infrastructure to facilitate this integration;
Whereas Canada's Finance Minister is permitting the Bank of Canada via its representative on the Fraser Institute to participate in the creation of a common currency called the AMERO;
Whereas the integration/harmonization is exemplified by common developments such as:
-the institutionalization of forms of biometric identifiers of citizens by government and industry via passports and driver's licenses, and the growing industry requirement that employees submit to biometric identification as a condition of employment, including at Canadian airports;
-"no fly" lists which declare persons guilty until proven innocent;
-arming of Canadian border guards;
-authorization of the application of increased amounts of pesticides on Canadian food products;
-administration of Merk's insufficiently tested Gardasil, a cervical cancer drug, to 9 to 11 year old girls with an intention to inject all such girls in North America;
Whereas Prime Minister Harper, President George Bush, and Mexican President Phillipe Calderone are meeting in August of 2007 (among other things) to harmonize an Avian Flu program and a North American emergency preparedness program created and operated by the US Homeland Security, the details of which operation are not disclosed to any Canadian Parliamentarian, nor US or Mexican Congressman;
Whereas President Bush by numerous executive orders has granted himself dictatorial powers, including primary authority over the U. S.'s emergency preparedness program and beyond the reach of or restraint by his own Congress;
Whereas the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is conducting a project called North American Future 2025, and is conducting seven closed door roundtable sessions in order to strengthen the capacity of Canadian, U.S. and Mexican administration officials and their respective legislatures to analyze, comprehend, and anticipate North American integration;
Whereas the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has convened 21 to 45 individuals being a combination of practitioners (from each respective administration and legislature), stakeholders (from the private sector and conceivably even some trade unions), and highly specialized academics and analysts from Canada, the United States and Mexico;
Whereas in September of 2007 the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) intends to deliver a final report on options and policy recommendations on the future of North American integration to the executive and legislative branches of the three governments of North America;
THEREFORE, the Canadian Action Party is calling on all Canadians to demand that on resumption of Parliament in September 2007:
That Parliament refuse to entertain the report from the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on options and policy recommendations on the future of North American integration, or to permit the presentation of that report to the executive branch of the Canadian government;
That there be no debate in Parliament on the pros and cons of restructuring Canada into an integrated North America, the subject being a violation of Canadians' fundamental inalienable right to enjoy and have an independent sovereign nation;
That Parliament immediately disband Canada's North American Competitiveness Council;
That Parliament immediately cease all funding for and participation in the working groups which are implementing the integration of Canada into a North American Union;
That Parliament immediately cease all funding for the North American Transportation corridors, i.e., the Super NAFTA highways;
That all opposition Members of Parliament participate in September 2007 in a MOTION OF NON CONFIDENCE in the current Conservative minority government on the issues of the unconstitutional implementation of the North American integration and the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement.
(note this doesn't appear on CAP's website at this point)
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 24, 2007]
Note: www.COIC.ca
SPP - Can We Work Together To Save This Nation - Please
Posted on Friday, August 24 at 07:50 by whelan costenContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
<br />
“We are on our last legs of a sovereign nation.”<br />
<br />
We all need to get our heads around some simple facts that have not been considered by the many. There is a popular myth that there exists sovereign nations, that myth is easily dispelled if any have the stomach for long buried truths.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=19421">http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=19421</a><br />
“The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white,…”<br />
<br />
<br />
Live by these two quotes or perish by your ignorance,<br />
<br />
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see a brick wall at the back of the theater." Frank Zappa<br />
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers”<br />
Thomas Pynchon <br />
<br />
<br />
And- Do, by ALL means, Work together.<br />
But first know what "together" is<br />
Dio<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
Thursday, July 26 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Contributed by: tomaidh
New World Order from the Mouths of the Elite
“We shall have world government whether or not you like it…by conquest or consent” - James Warburg - Rothschild banking
agent. 1950
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes” – Felix Frankfurter – U.S. Supreme Court Justice. 1952
“The case for government by elites is irrefutable” – William Fulbright – U.S. Senator. 1963
“The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States…they will rule the future” – Barry Goldwater – U.S. Senator 1964
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” – Carroll Quigley, G.U. Professor, author of “Tragedy and Hope”. 1966
“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This would especially be true if they were told there were a threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by a World Government”. Henry Kissinger – Statesman – 1991
“The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as ‘International Bankers’.
The little coterie of powerful International Bankers virtually runs the U.S. government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.” John F. Hylan, NYC Mayor, (1918 – 1925) 1922
“Fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure”. Joseph Kennedy – U.S. Ambassador 1936
“ For a long time I felt that FDR had determined and developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States, but he didn’t.---- Most of his thoughts were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR – One World Money Group. The UN is but a long range international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power. The One-World government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank”. – Curtis Dall, from his book: “FDR: My Exploited Father – in – Law”
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the governments since the days of Andrew Jackson”. – FDR 1933
”In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority. National Sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all”. Strobe Talbot – Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State - 1992
“We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money”. Arthur Schlesinger – U.S. Historian 1995
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. David Rockefeller
I am quite willing to pay someone a salary of $1 million dollars if he is brutal enough. “He must be able to glide over every moral restraint with almost childlike disregard, and have no scruples whatsoever and be ready to kill thousands of victims – without a murmur.” John D. Rockefeller
Nor, finally, is it in any way a "theory" that the one, single name that can be directly linked to the Third Reich, the US military industrial complex, Skull and Bones, Eastern Establishment good ol' boys, the Illuminati, Big Texas Oil, the Bay of Pigs, the Miami Cubans, the Mafia, the FBI, the JFK assassination, the New World Order, Watergate, the Republican National Committee, Eastern European fascists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, CIA headquarters, the October Surprise, the Iran/Contra scandal, Inslaw, the Christic Institute, Manuel Noriega, drug-running "freedom fighters" and death squads, Iraqgate, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the blood of innocents, the savings and loan crash, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the "Octopus," the "Enterprise," the Afghan Mujaheddin, the War on Drugs, Mena (Arkansas), Whitewater, Sun Myung Moon, the Carlyle Group, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the presidency and vice-Presidency of the United States, is: George Herbert Walker Bush.
Michael Hasty's article, "Paranoid Shift"
“Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in few hands and the republic is destroyed.”
Abraham Lincoln
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
dissect it for better perspective, or personalize it to their own interpretation. I
won't be holding my breath for MP's to work together on issues under the
current system, however anything is possible. I would prefer to give credit to
good ideas and suggest they be undertaken, than to wring my hands about
the state of affairs and believe nothing good will happen.
Good is happening everyday. However the news doesn't report the 'good' very
often. It is good to see Canadians beginning to see through the facade. It is
good to see MP's beginning to speak out and I would like to encourage it to
continue. I do however believe that the system will probably fail, as there is
too much at stake for any individual to risk it all by speaking for us. The way I
see this though is that out of the ashes of this disaster, there is a better
chance for us to have a better world. If there is a chance to prevent the worst
case scenerio, I will do whatever I can to help; if there is no chance to save
our nation, much like what happened to Austria when Germany rolled over
her; then we will have to hope we can survive the horrors and think about the
rebuilding.
Either way, my letter was a suggestion, a small hope that people will take this
opportunity to expose the entire mess. If it doesn't happen, I've lost nothing
but a little time. I don't believe that any of us have the complete recipe for
fixing the system, I don't accept the concept that there is only one way to do
anything; so as each of us brings forward our ideas we can begin the process
for tomorrow. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle, everyone. Even those who
antagonize others, or who act the bully, or who deny us the facts, act in
secrecy etc. ; they are all contributing to the solution, whether they realize it
or not. As our pm and mp's try to cover up, more people begin to wake up; as
the police try to incite a riot, people come together to expose it; it's a dance -
sometimes beautiful, sometimes clumsy - I am very interested in the outcome
of these events.
---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere
<br />
<br />
possibility Show phonetics<br />
noun <br />
1 [C or U] a chance that something may happen or be true:<br />
It's not likely to happen but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.<br />
The forecast said that there's a possibility of snow tonight.<br />
[+ (that)] There's a distinct possibility (that) I'll be asked to give a speech.<br />
Is there any possibility (that) you could pick me up from the station?<br />
<br />
theoretical possibility noun <br />
something which could, but is unlikely to, happen or be true according to the known facts<br />
<br />
<br />
With all due respect <br />
<br />
The way I see it!<br />
There are possibilities and there are theoretical possibilities and then there are dreams and wishfully thinking, all of which are fine within them selves but of no use until there are plans in place to carry the ideas out<br />
I do not wish to piss on ANY ones parade nor would I, I will point out the folly in hope alone. Are we now clear on that?<br />
<br />
What ever critical mass that has to be reached to put the hundredth monkey theory into place has not been reached, and the idea that it will be reached has been the dreams of the oppressed for centuries, and likely will continue to be that way ‘til the lights go out on this planet.<br />
Why do I say this?<br />
I say it simply because I see no concerted effort on the part of the oppressed that has or can have the effect they look for. <br />
And to my way of thinking the situation will not change until people, en masse, change.<br />
<br />
It is really a question of not desire but one of strategy and so far I seen no strategy offered, let alone agreement on a strategy thjat can counter what the rulers of the world have in place.<br />
<br />
This ever so tiny Coalition of Independent Candidates however well intended as they may be have so far only pointed out what is obvious to some of us and ridiculous or unheard of to others. There is no strategy in place to build a consensus on and my own experience with at least two of the members has be less than satisfactory. I won’t go into the details of that instance except to say the end result was to alienate.<br />
<br />
Time and time again I have offered on these pages information on who, what and how the masses are manipulated. I have not been alone in doing this. Do any of you think this in any way sets me apart ot makes me some how “special”?<br />
<br />
It does NOT! <br />
<br />
George Lakoff has written extensively on the crucial–ness, If I may coin a word, on the understanding of knowledge and how the conservative control with language our thoughts. To disregard his body of work, like so many here do is the weakness of there position<br />
<br />
<a href="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Lakoff.html">http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Lakoff.html</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
On the Relativity of Knowledge and Truth <br />
"Knowledge, like truth, is relative to understanding. Our folk view of knowledge as being absolute comes from the same source as our folk view that truth is absolute, which is the folk theory that there is only one way to understand a situation. When that folk theory fails, and we have multiple ways of understanding, or 'framing,' a situation, then knowledge, like truth, becomes relative to that understanding. Likewise, when our knowledge is stable and secure, knowledge based on that understanding is stable and secure. <br />
Is such knowledge 'real knowledge'? Well, it's as real as our knowledge ever gets--real enough for all but the most seasoned skeptics."<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml">http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml</a> <br />
<br />
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics<br />
<br />
<br />
Start to get your heads around this stuff folks or continue the mental masturbation of “possibilities” <br />
<br />
Dems da Choices!<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
good ideas and suggest they be undertaken, than to wring my hands about
the state of affairs and believe nothing good will happen."
You are so right about that, each of us likes to blow off steam or moan about situations that we dislike or have little influence upon but that must not stop us from trying to change things, each in his or her own way.
I believe the best chance of change is by working within the system of governance that we have, and certainly pressuring our MPs and/or getting media attention is part of that. My very small contrubution has been to spread the word without getting too rabid about it, that just turns folk off. I am pleased to say that my postings in part, with help from other bloggers, may have turned one MP from "is your tin hat on tight" to " there must be full disclosure and debate in the HOC on this" (see MP Garth Turners Blog).
It is a slow and frustrating process changing things via a democratic process, as flawed as some feel ours is, but even though the odds (and, yes even the system) is against us we simply must each keep trying.
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
recognize that many people are willing to tell the rest of us how to do things,
which is not so different than an order; but the truth is always in results. So
rather than say I told you to do it this way and you won't listen, I prefer to
suggest an avenue that might work, because we don't know it until we try;
but if people don't want to try it, that is also perfectly fine. I really believe in
freedom, and that means freedom for everyone. I am watching to see more
people, 'show me how something works', rather than being told how it should
work.
So if aggression got results, I might believe that was the way to go; so far I
don't see evidence that it does. COIC is not necessarily the only answer, in
fact I don't believe there is 'only' one answer, we are going to change this
country by using many, many methods, and many many people's ideas. I
don't see one sure thing as the solution. But COIC is part of the options, part
of the choices, and hopefully as people start looking for alternatives to
corporate party rule, we'll see more Canadians involved in our democracy. So
I have hope and faith in people. Just because there isn't a quick fix, doesn't
mean things are not working, in progress, momentum building, etc.
A fair number of people are saying that people haven't changed in thousands
of years, so it won't happen. But we have changed, in many ways. Slavery in
the US wasn't abolished in an overnight decision, and democracy isn't going
to come to us overnight either. Attitudes have to change, and they won't until
there is a reason to change. Most children today don't hold the racial bias
that allowed slavery to be acceptable in the past. Most children today will look
at politics and politicians differently than their parents and grandparents did.
I don't see politicians the same way my parents did and I know my children
have been raised with a different concept than I was; so it would be great if
people would attempt to see
that things are changing even if they are not very obvious. Garth Turner has
done alot to bring attention to the lack in parliament, and Bill Casey is also
showing real determination. These men are standing for truth and it is
refreshing.
We often read on vive, posters expressing frustration with our fellow posters,
but if you go back to the early posts you can see the progress we've all made.
Even my own early posts could not have been written today. I've changed, I've
learned and see the world differently because of that learning. I didn't have all
the answers then, I don't have them now, but I value the opportunity to
express my thoughts and read other people's views. These are exciting times
in Canada and the world!
---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere
don't see evidence that it does."
Agression doesn't get results?
Thosen now in power , the one George Lakoff speaks of ARE agressive, and it works If it didn't then we all wouldn have our undies in a knot whaining for change
The suggestion is to broaden one scope of understanding as per
this
On the Relativity of Knowledge and Truth
"Knowledge, like truth, is relative to understanding. Our folk view of knowledge as being absolute comes from the same source as our folk view that truth is absolute, which is the folk theory that there is only one way to understand a situation. When that folk theory fails, and we have multiple ways of understanding, or 'framing,' a situation, then knowledge, like truth, becomes relative to that understanding. Likewise, when our knowledge is stable and secure, knowledge based on that understanding is stable and secure.
Is such knowledge 'real knowledge'? Well, it's as real as our knowledge ever gets--real enough for all but the most seasoned skeptics."
It is never a question of having ALL the answer It is a question of having answers that work. When an idea that has been labouriously reasearched and for to not only work but to be used by those we want to acknowledge our coencerns, then it is reasonable to pay heed.
I have and will continue to offer what I find that is working in the hopes (falses or not) that the recient will have the good sense to see that what is suggested is working.
We may not like the way it works because it is our ox being gored, but rest assured those who are getting the results they want are quite please with the outcomes.
by the way there are at least two definitions of agression I am using the latter
aggression Show phonetics
noun
1 spoken or physical behaviour which is threatening or involves harm to someone or something:
Some types of dog are bred for aggression.
an act of aggression
2 forceful playing in sport that is intended to win points
by defining words as positive or negative only we have deminished our vocabularies to the point of political correctness gone stark raving mad.
any honest person will examine their own bias as the attemp tpo choose a "this over that" strategy.
Once a mind decides to view in a certain way based on god only knows what it is neer next to impossible for any change to take place because the bias is much like a lense seen through. (as in rose coloured glasses or put a good face on it)
Things are as they are: in their entirety, not just the parts that give us warm fuzzys
What I see is that without the yin/yan there is only ignorance of the other part(s) or illusions
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
my perspective. Not to suggest I am right, but to explain my thinking. It is
not for everyone, but it is my belief.
I should have said, aggression does not work for me, or for my expected
goals. I have a great
deal of respect for George Lakoff, have read much of what he has written and
he explains very clearly how the spin is spun. Aggression and spin has gotten
the results they expected and desired -however when you are creating
something entirely different you don't use the same plan.
Aggression is not part of my recipe. If two people are baking - you could say
they are both baking and should use a tried and true method- but if one is
baking bread and the other a cake - both the ingredients and the method will
be different- the results will be different. If one has a goal for peace and the
other for war; the method and ingredients will be different.
As I stated earlier there are some people who will criticize the method, some
will criticize the ingredients, some will fear the unknown objective; but none
of those criticisms or fears that others hold regarding my choices, should or
will prevent me from moving towards my goal. Many people fear the
unknown, and what they do not understand. It explains much of the conflict
in the world, and how easily many nations have been overthrown. It explains
the fear many have towards other cultures, religion, races and ways of living.
The questions are really rather
obvious to me - has peace ever really been achieved in the last 2000 years?
Has humanity reached the end of its resources to change the way we live? Is
there someone on the planet today that can guarantee that one method or
another will provide us with the key, the perfect solution? When all of those
questions can be answered yes, then I will know for certain that my method,
and ingredients are wrong.
It occurs to me that for many people the fear has created the frustration
factor, it is the source for language of orders- panic has set in. We must do
this, you must do that, you must follow this method, and then the name
calling if you don't follow - but truth is, there is no perfect solution, there is
no timeline to follow, and nothing to fear. If the country falls, then it falls,
then we begin to rebuild out of those ashes. Germany fell, England was
destroyed, the empire fell, Afghanistan and Iraq are being destroyed, etc etc.
but the world has not ended. Many are dying to support aggression on both
sides of the conflicts, and yes it horrifies me to see such waste of potential,
the sacrifice of human life, especially the concept that there won't be enough
for all of us to survive, so we must fight for what's left; (a concept I do not
subscribe to)
however until more of us chose peace, non-violent resolutions, then it will
continue.
Again, we can't force others to choose, they must decide for
themselves. When Ghandi walked to the ocean, he didn't say, 'you must walk
with me or we'll lose this advantage' . He said, I am walking to the ocean. I am
going to walk this path, and others decided to follow him, they weren't
beaten into that decision. So that is where I return to the example, if it works,
if we believe it works, then we must 'show people' through our actions, not by
telling them what to do. I'm not going to tell anyone what to do. I am going to
follow my internal sense of good and do what I believe needs doing to
achieve a sense of peace, both internally and externally.
---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere
factor, it is the source for language of orders- panic has set in. We must do <br />
this, you must do that, you must follow this method, and then the name <br />
calling if you don't follow - but truth is, there is no perfect solution, there is <br />
no timeline to follow, and nothing to fear. If the country falls, then it falls, You: <br />
“It occurs to me that for many people the fear has created the frustration <br />
factor,” <br />
<br />
<br />
I: Perhaps that is the case. I say perhaps because it is a judgement call base on personal speculations rather than hard evidence I know of no study that might support such an assertion and if such a study exist I will certainly bow to it, depending of course on who did the study. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You:<br />
“it is the source for language of orders- panic has set in.”<br />
<br />
I: <br />
An assumption, at best. Blanket statements such as that loose the writer credibility when spoken as if there is authority behind them. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You:<br />
“We must do this, you must do that, you must follow this method, and then the name <br />
calling if you don't follow - but truth is, there is no perfect solution, there is <br />
no timeline to follow, and nothing to fear.”<br />
<br />
I:<br />
I have no idea how you have determined this, Catherine. As I’ve already stated it is the converse of what I have been saying and as we are exchanging our points of view I don’t recall saying “we must” In will remind you of the expression ,”If the shoe fits…”<br />
And that is quite different than name calling. <br />
It is odd that you claim in your lead article “We are on our last legs of a sovereign nation.”<br />
And the incongruently state “…there is no timeline to follow, and nothing to fear.”<br />
Being on ones “last legs implies urgency or at least a kind of “Oh well” or "Que Sera Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)," a resignation to the fates <br />
<br />
You:<br />
“If the country falls, then it falls,<br />
<br />
<br />
I: See above <br />
<br />
You:<br />
then we begin to rebuild out of those ashes. Germany fell, England was <br />
destroyed, the empire fell, Afghanistan and Iraq are being destroyed, etc etc. <br />
but the world has not ended”<br />
<br />
I: <br />
I see a very cavalier attitude in you words Catherine, The world has certainly ended for those who lost their lives due to world leaders who rightly ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.<br />
The world of those robbed of their way of live and of their country has certainly ended <br />
<br />
But hey Catherine is all good. You have, as you states lost nothing.<br />
How very very wonderful, for you.<br />
<br />
<br />
here are many accounts of those who's worlf HAS ended Catherine <br />
<a href="http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=35566&s2=22">http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=35566&s2=22</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Silent-Genocide25mar04.htm">http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Silent-Genocide25mar04.htm</a><br />
<br />
then we begin to rebuild out of those ashes. Germany fell, England was <br />
destroyed, the empire fell, Afghanistan and Iraq are being destroyed, etc etc. <br />
but the world has not ended"<br />
In my estimation you were doing realy, realy good, ou to the above and then it went off the rails for me<br />
And here is why... in a way you mau=ynot realise what you have written is the converse of what i have been saying ever sinse I signed on here <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
<br />
Ever since I first heard the song I’ve applied the logic to me <br />
<br />
On another note perhaps when or if you read the info at <a href="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Talmy.html">http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Talmy.html</a> <br />
You’ll gain a deeper understanding of where I am coming from<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
should the NDP take the recommendations of CAP and call a non-confidence
vote when Parliament resumes?
Is there an objective to this line of comments?
"But hey Catherine is all good. You have, as you states lost nothing.
How very very wonderful, for you."
This statement may have a purpose which
I am unaware of; however I submitted the letter for information and to
encourage others to speak out, to inform and share their knowledge with
other Canadians. Working together does not mean we must agree with all
perceptions; whether we feel good or not, whether we feel the sorrow of
others losses, does not change the circumstances. Whether we sit and weep
over the death and destruction, or become obsessed with that horror does
not preclude us from standing up and attempting change for the future. How
we feel personally about specific events cannot be measured, nor does it
make one's words more credible; credibility is not lost on opinion. Opinions
can be changed as I've stated previously. Opinions are not necessarily factual,
they are perceptions of facts.
Credibility is a matter of facts, or untruths. It is my opinion that we can
change the
events occurring at this time; it is also my opinion that if we do nothing, we
will witness the failure of our nation and that once that occurs, although
deplorable and probably devastating to many, we will rebuild from the ashes.
The SPP is a threat to our nation as we know it. If we desire to be a sovereign
nation, which means to control our own resources and not take our orders
and direction from the corporate elite, then we have limited options at this
point. Limited in what I see at this time, however unlimited in the reality of
possibilities which I do not see. Anything is possible.
That I reject the concept that there is only one right way, reflects my point of
view, I could be wrong perhaps there is only one right way. Perhaps if all the
people here read George Lakoff and use his methods we could change the
world. However my belief is that George Lakoff has shown the use of spin,
framing and use of specific words and how they are used to control the
masses; I have no wish to control anyone. Does that make me wrong? Does
that make my opinion less credible?
If I chose to believe that humanity will rise up and evolve, does that make my
opinion wrong, is this positive view of the future wrong? Freedom to believe
is a fundamental survival tool; even though others will attempt to control us,
even our minds, we can reject those control tools.
So Dio what do you expect
to be the outcome of your posts on this thread? The letter was posted to
share my point of view, to encourage one option, and to do what I believe is
the right thing at this time. I do not intend to put a great deal of energy into
dissecting the language used, or the hidden meanings of every statement, or
examine why when I say 'you' collectively, a person takes that personally. We
could spend a great deal of time debating the use of a word, take it out of
context and re-examine it, exploring all possible meanings etc. Which could
be great fun if that was the objective. It is not mine. What is your objective?
I care deeply about freedom, about the sacredness of human life, and have
dedicated a great deal of time to the pursuit of peace for all. What people feel
regarding various injustices in the world and how they are affected by those
feelings is one facet of the situation. I did not write the letter to express the
depth of horror, or the sorrow I feel, but rather the possible solutions to
prevent more horror and sorrow for many. That I accept that a solution may
not be found and that much pain and suffering may occur, does not mean
that I am insensitive to it, but rather that I will accept it, because to do
otherwise is to live in illusion. Accepting it does not mean liking it.
So the original article was submitted to express an idea. Do you agree with
the suggestion made within it? If you have another suggestion on how the
letter could be written, or another idea on how we can reach a positive
resolution to the current situation, that being the SPP, please share your idea.
If you have written a letter to a member of parliament expressing what you
believe to be the solution please submit it for our information. I, for one,
would be very pleased to read alternatives to my suggestion; which was to
encourage the NDP to call a non-confidence vote based on the
recommendations of CAP.
Do you have confidence in the current government? Do you feel that the SPP
should be rejected in its entirety or do you like some parts of it and feel it
should be negotiated? What is your suggestion on whether we should stand
up to this threat, or do you not accept the SPP as a threat?
I have read many articles expressing the fear, anger, outrage and frustration
about the threat of SPP and the NAU, but have not seen many solutions or
attempts for solutions. It would be very encouraging to see other alternatives.
---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere
“The topic is
should the NDP take the recommendations of CAP and call a non-confidence
vote when Parliament resumes?”
Should’s are one of the most difficult of questions to respond to in as much as they are wrapped around morality and morality, for the most part has an ethereal quality about it. But that aside as a non confidence motion is one of the few tools available then by all means it “should” be used. Does that answer your question?
“Is there an objective to this line of comments?
"But hey Catherine is all good. You have, as you states lost nothing.
How very very wonderful, for you."
.
Yes of course there is an objective to the “line” of comments and It is most unfortunate that is, by your own admission lost to you. The objective was, and is to have you look at the offhanded manner (cavalier) of your comments. That too, was explained in my response.
“I submitted the letter for information and to
encourage others to speak out, to inform and share their knowledge with
other Canadians.”
Excellent!
“ Working together does not mean we must agree with all
perceptions; whether we feel good or not, whether we feel the sorrow of
others losses, does not change the circumstances. Whether we sit and weep
over the death and destruction, or become obsessed with that horror does
not preclude us from standing up and attempting change for the future. How
we feel personally about specific events cannot be measured, nor does it
make one's words more credible; credibility is not lost on opinion. Opinions
can be changed as I've stated previously. Opinions are not necessarily factual,
they are perceptions of facts.
Credibility is a matter of facts, or untruths.”
Spare me the superfluous gak Catherine, or shall I take it you are now writing to those who may be less informed than I?
“ It is my opinion that we can
change the
events occurring at this time; it is also my opinion that if we do nothing, we
will witness the failure of our nation…”
You are not alone in this assessment. It is one I also have. And … to suggest otherwise would be a falsity. “
and that once that occurs, although
deplorable and probably devastating to many,
“we will rebuild from the ashes.”
There will be little opportunity to “rebuild” as you say, There are rumblings of police state actions, marshal law, new law, and all manner of means of control, and that my friend is the real threat to any rebuilding
“The SPP is a threat to our nation as we know it.”
The key words here are ‘as we know it’. It is our supposed ‘knowing’ of it that I and others are questioning. Ed Deak has stated on another thread this morning that there are conspiracies, I know this, Conspiracies, as factual.
In order to counter such events as the SPP effective strategies must be put into place. It is effectiveness, or rather the lack of it, that I go on about.
Further… I ask in all sincerity, Does the public at large know what is at stake, and if so why is it left to only a few of us to counter these conspiracies?
“ If we desire to be a sovereign
nation, which means to control our own resources and not take our orders
and direction from the corporate elite, then we have limited options at this
point. Limited in what I see at this time, however unlimited in the reality of
possibilities which I do not see. Anything is possible.”
Quite right! Catherine any thing IS possible now lets make it real!
“That I reject the concept that there is only one right way, reflects my point of
view, I could be wrong perhaps there is only one right way. Perhaps if all the
people here read George Lakoff and use his methods we could change the
world. However my belief is that George Lakoff has shown the use of spin,
framing and use of specific words and how they are used to control the
masses; I have no wish to control anyone. Does that make me wrong? Does
that make my opinion less credible? “
The question of one way is yours, NOT mine and please stop trying to make it that way.
Do not confuse the call to awareness as control!
Whether you are right or wrong is not the question!
Catherine?
It is not about you! It is what is effective” It is about what men like Lakoff have demonstrated countless times, to work!
It is a question of ones, your passion, and your commitment!
The “Well if it doesn’t work out we can always… fill in the blanks, does Not qualify for commitment! What it does do is qualify only for “possibilities”
It is, at least in my book, reality that counts.
Possibilities, as any linguist will tell you is a soft fluffy word use where a firm concrete word is required when an outcome is to be met.
Philosophically, possibilities are dreams and what the framers of the SPP are dealing with are realities and to combat reality one has to use reality as a counter measure
It ia an “We WILL..” not a well it is possible that if the stars are aligned and Jupiter is in conjunction with… blah, blah, blah.
“If I chose to believe that humanity will rise up and evolve, does that make my
opinion wrong, is this positive view of the future wrong?”
Why would you ask of me such a question?
Freedom to believe
is a fundamental survival tool; even though others will attempt to control us,
even our minds, we can reject those control tools.
“So Dio what do you expect
to be the outcome of your posts on this thread?”
The question is more of “What do you believe I expect?”
The letter was posted to
share my point of view, to encourage one option, and to do what I believe is
the right thing at this time.
“I do not intend to put a great deal of energy into
dissecting the language used, or the hidden meanings of every statement, or
examine why when I say 'you' collectively, a person takes that personally.”
Then you will have failed as a communicator.
It is the explicitness of language, the eloquence of ones words, that gets a message across(something I work on and a daily basis)
“We
could spend a great deal of time debating the use of a word, take it out of
context and re-examine it, exploring all possible meanings etc. Which could
be great fun if that was the objective. It is not mine. What is your objective?
My objective has been stated!
Why exactly are questioning it?
I care deeply about freedom, about the sacredness of human life, and have
dedicated a great deal of time to the pursuit of peace for all. What people feel
regarding various injustices in the world and how they are affected by those
feelings is one facet of the situation. I did not write the letter to express the
depth of horror, or the sorrow I feel, but rather the possible solutions to
prevent more horror and sorrow for many. That I accept that a solution may
not be found and that much pain and suffering may occur, does not mean
that I am insensitive to it, but rather that I will accept it, because to do
otherwise is to live in illusion. Accepting it does not mean liking it.
So the original article was submitted to express an idea. Do you agree with
the suggestion made within it? If you have another suggestion on how the
letter could be written, or another idea on how we can reach a positive
resolution to the current situation, that being the SPP, please share your idea.
If you have written a letter to a member of parliament expressing what you
believe to be the solution please submit it for our information. I, for one,
would be very pleased to read alternatives to my suggestion; which was to
encourage the NDP to call a non-confidence vote based on the
recommendations of CAP.
“Do you have confidence in the current government? Do you feel that the SPP
should be rejected in its entirety or do you like some parts of it and feel it
should be negotiated? What is your suggestion on whether we should stand
up to this threat, or do you not accept the SPP as a threat? “
What exactly is your purpose with your questions to me Catherine?
“I have read many articles expressing the fear, anger, outrage and frustration
about the threat of SPP and the NAU, but have not seen many solutions or
attempts for solutions. It would be very encouraging to see other alternatives.”
In any rude awakening there can be, and certainly are moments of bewilderment and those who have been aware the longest have an obligation to offer suggestion on how the monster can be quelled, on that we can agree, can we not?
That you have spent so much time in responding to my suggestions of the “how to’s” indicates to me I have failed to frame my suggestions in a manner of your pleasing. You can assist me, or not
By now and in all of our exchanges on site and off if you haven’t understood where I stand I am at a loss. (For the time being)
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
What Lakoff sees as perhaps accurate I see as in more concrete terms.
Please consider my week offerings stated far more eloquently by professor Lakoff and then judge me.
Dio
Consequences
If this analysis is right, or even close to right, then a great deal follows. Liberals do not understand what unifies their own worldview and so are helpless to deal effectively with conservatism. Not only is there no unified liberal political structure, but there is no overall effective liberal rhetoric to counter the carefully constructed conservative rhetoric. Where conservatives have carefully coined terms and images and repeated them until they have entered the popular lexicon, liberals have not done the same. Liberals need to go beyond coalitions of interest groups to consciously construct a unified language and imagery to convey their worldview. This will not be easy, and they are 30 years behind.
If this analysis is right, there are implications not just for contemporary politics, but also for the long-term philosophical study of moral systems. I have argued that perhaps the most important part of any real moral system is the system of metaphors for morality and the priorities given to particular metaphors. If I am correct, then vital political reasoning is done using those metaphors -- and usually done unconsciously. This means that the empirical study of metaphorical thought must be given its appropriate place in ethics and moral theory, as Mark Johnson has argued.
Finally, there are major consequences for social research itself. Social research these days tends not to take into account empirical research on conceptual systems done within cognitive science in general and cognitive linguistics in particular. Cognitive explanations, like those given here, are not the norm. Instead, explanation has tended to be based on economics, or class, or the rational actor model, or models of power. I would like to suggest that the study of conceptual systems is a major tool for explanation in social research -- a tool so vital in our current situation that it cannot be ignored.
Susan might also want to consider Lakoff insights
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
Look here there may be some ideas<br />
and As I was looking for Ideas I remembered other suggestion I've made with respect to this topic A peoples goverment that is outside of the established order was put forth <br />
<br />
I've had and presented somany ideas Iforgotten most of them <br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />