Globalism Begins at Home–The North American Union

American populism is a wonderful phenomenon, a circus full of conspiracy theories that walk that crawl on their belly like a snake but promise a lot more than they deliver.  But populism, for all its zaniness, also provides a home for hard-headed cynical views about the intentions of the ruling elites that own American governmental institutions and operate them exclusively for their own benefit.

Over the past twenty years at least, a favorite theme played upon by populist leaders has been the North American Union, against we have been warned by fairly sober politicians like the the estimable Duncan Hunter, fringe libertarians like Ron Paul, political activists like the late Phyllis Schlafly, and the masters of the art of detecting their own neuroses in the the petty minds of shyster politicos—the John Birch Society.  

The NAU is an alleged plot to merge the three nations of North America—the United States, Canada, and Mexico—into a union that will function something like the European Union.  If the first step toward unification is represented by the “NAFTA Highway”—a free-trade hole in the American border stretching from Mexico to Canada proposed by former Texas Governor and Bush family representative Rick Perry—the apogee will be the issuance of a new common currency, the Amero. 

World Government has been a treasured bugbear of the fringe-right since the heyday of the John Birch Society, and the this conspiracy has supposedly been cooked up by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bush Administration, and the usual globalist suspects.  It is hard, however, to call it a conspiracy, when the CFR and the Bushes have been so open in their advocacy.  In 2005 the CFR issued a report, “Building a North American Community,” whose aspirations were echoed in the Bush administration’s plan, “Security Prosperity Partnership” in North America (SPP), released after a meeting among George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Paul Martin.  The plan, which is predicated on the idea that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary," calls for a joint taskforce to implement the goals: common security and a common market. 

In Mexico, former president Vicente Fox was apparently inspired to the pursuit of a more perfect union by his colleague Jorge Castañeda Gutman, who borrowed the notion from Robert Pastor, son-in-law of Robert McNamara.  Pastor was an exemplary CFR type, a compound of cynicism, ignorance of history, and globalist mania.   Jesse Helms had wisely blocked his appointment as Ambassador to Panama, arguing that Pastor was responsible for Panama Canal treaties that ignored American interests, and he ended up a professor in Mexico.

Ron Paul, on one of the many occasions he pretended to be running for President, denounced the Bush administration’s Bush administration’s SPP as "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments" that does not even enjoy the legal fig leaf of an official treaty.  The more general conclusion he drew is that “decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress” but by “a handful of elites [that] use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution.”

The introduction of the NAFTA Superhighway and the SPP into the rhetoric of a presidential campaign naturally aroused snorts of contempt, and not without reason.  The alleged plotters—the leaders of three democratic nations (the US, Canada, and Mexico), joined by the Republican Governor of Texas (Rick Perry), and the most prestigious policy experts at the CFR (which includes most of the important senior members of past administrations)—are no back-alley conspirators.  The CFR, of which both Bushes are members, has never made a secret of its commitment to world government, and the American presidents and leading economists who have supported NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, express the consensus, not of the people of America but of the people who own America and dictate the editorial policies of both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.  If you find this statement shocking or surprising, you have not been paying attention to the world around you.

Populist fear-mongering has been greeted by the outcries of the professional Polyannas in the all usual places.  The website SNOPES—a reliable source of disinformation on everything under the sun—disingenuously argues that “more aggressive plans for North American cooperation, such as the ‘establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter’ …are merely analyses and recommendations developed by independent “think tanks”; they are not treaties, legislation, or official blueprints for future governmental actions.”  

As if even Ron Paul ever believed the NAU had ever been a done deal.  If it were set in concrete, there would hardly be any point in demagoguing the issue.  Besides, even the regime-apologists at SNOPE—whose credibility I estimate to be on par with that of the SPLC—must be aware that the march to power over nations is first led through the Institutions—universities, think tanks, lobbying groups, and fact-checking websites. 

The real trouble with conservative diatribes is that they focus on petty questions such as “Will there be a common currency, and if so, what name do we give it and what color will the bills be?”  The revolutionaries are much smarter than that.  Call it what you like, color it what you like, have or do not have a common currency—what difference does it make to ideologues who are dragging the troglodytes down the road to the peace that can only by achieved by despotic means.   Twenty years ago, they could be open about their aspirations.  When it became a political liability, they commissioned the explainers and hypnotists to concoct the counter story, all the while taking their usual two steps forward, even as they were publicly taking their one step back.

A woodsman is always on the lookout for sign, and some of the information can seem apparently innocent—some bent grass or some ground torn up by a wild pig.  Pigs are are not terribly bright, hardly brighter than the people who read the Huffington Post, but a third-rate puff=peddler like HuffPo only blurts out what might be better left unsaid.  In 2017, they ran a piece, full of ill-timed candor, on progress being made toward North American Union.  The author, a complete nobody, in dreaming of closer integration, argued that the first priority was the border: 

“In order to create a Schengen-style border agreement, both the US and Canada need to agree on a system in which passport holders and permanent residents are guaranteed the ability to enter either country freely, so long as one can provide information regarding employment, education, or residence. No visa required.”

Since open borders require “security and intelligence integration,” a “Treaty of Union would require both nations to administer a shared intelligence database so that information regarding background checks, national security and counter-terrorism operations, as well as basic criminal records, are accessible to both security services.” 

There is more than one avenue to economic integration, but “common currency, makes this system work much easier. A single currency, the North American Dollar, for example, which is established as a currency reflecting the purchasing power of both the US and Canadian dollars, phased in over a four-year period so that people can spend their old dollars which can be replaced.”

Of course neither the author nor the website are official spokesmen for any of the governments.  They are simply reflecting, in a naive aw-shucks manner, the erotic dreams of the globalists who dominate both political parties.

Only a good scout like Ron Paul could sincerely believe that the erosion of sovereignty is an issue that will arouse the American electorate to cast of the chains of the party-state that tells them how to treat their spouses and rear their children, whose children to reward with benefits at the expense of their own, and what to eat and where to smoke a cigar.  As an impudent young man, I told my father that his generation—“the greatest generation”—had sold out our liberties by reelecting FDR and by accepting the withholding of federal income tax from our salaries.  At least since the time my voice changed, I have known that I did not live in a free country: What I know about republican liberty I have learned from books.

To be concluded