Conspiracy theories, a North American Union, and other B.S.

My mother enjoys torturing me by e-mailing me the incoherent rants of right-wing malcontents from time to time.  I suppose it’s part of a game she plays with me which I claim to hate but actually in reality secretly don’t mind.  But I guess, on the other hand it could also be because maybe she believes that angering up the blood and having your face turn red with frustration periodically is somehow therapeutic.

Either way, she stumbled across this gem of a video and decided that I should have to share in her pain and so she passed it along to me today. (And I’m in an apparently sadistic mood today and thus feel that you, my reader, should also suffer along with me as well… it’s a vicious cycle, it really is.)

(The original link to the video was here on this 9/11 truth blog)

Now, at first, I was beguiled by the “Impeach Bush” banner at the top of the blog she linked to and thought that this would actually be a reputable video on media distortion.  Perhaps, I thought, it might be a joint interview with Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman discussing new data on their Propaganda Model?  Perhaps an interview with Robert McChesney, author of Rich Media: Poor Democracy?  Perhaps an interview with Chomsky, Herman AND McChesney, I foolishly thought as I got comfortable and settled into my chair to enjoy the show.

“Oh, goodie,” I found myself thinking “59 minutes and 49 seconds.  This is going to be a full length feature.”

… And then the conspiracies came a-comin’.

For instance, did you know that everything which is reported in the media is controlled by the Freemasons and other secret, shadowy organizations who are all either associated with communism or who are at least sympathetic to it?  

I know, I was surprised too. 

Peter Jennings was a communist sympathizer.  Dan Rather was a communist sympathizer.  In fact the video even goes so far as to claim that William Buckley Jr. was a communist sympathizer.  Seriously?  William Buckley Jr.! The same conservative pompous right-winger who was fond of arguing that the U.S. engages in benign imperialism?

Or, did you know that everybody in a position of authority in the U.S. Government is actually working secretively to abolish the U.S. Government itself and to destroy U.S. Sovereignty so that it can — depending on who you talk to — establish either a North American Union or a New World Order where the U.S. will be emasculated?

Now, if this video was full of harmlessly ridiculous claims (like that William F. Buckley was a communist sympathizer) then I would have just gotten angry and then laughed it off.  But specifically the claim about U.S. sovereignty in the video deserve to be addressed as they do touch on something pertinent to Canada.

First, while I think most people who do not have True-believer syndrome can see that the U.S. élites’ behaviour is predominantly concerned with projecting U.S. sovereignty, not sabotaging it, the ridiculous and trumped up fears of a full-fledged North American Union are actually brought up on this side of the border as a genuine possibility by people on the left who normally have more sense than that.

It is a source of embarrassment to those of us on the left that there are actually Canadians who believe that the end goal of the U.S. is to actually formally ‘acquire’ Canada and Mexico as some sort of a final  realization of 19th Century Manifest Destiny.  This constant fear of becoming the 51st U.S. State is either intellectual laziness or linguistic laziness (merely a placeholder for economic imperialism), but either way it’s lazy.

Why on earth would U.S. élites want to formally enter into a North American Union?  If we were formally incorporated into some sort of American Union, then Canada and Mexico would actually have to be given an institutional voice in policy creation whereas now the U.S. has the best of all worlds.  Their capital can cross both borders seamlessly (okay, sure there’s always tweaking to be done to make it more brutally efficient, but we’re talking a matter of degrees here and that’s it).  They’ve won already.

U.S. capital can extract natural resources in Canada and the federal and provincial Governments in Canada are forbidden from retaliating or hindering this extraction in any way.  U.S. capital can then extract the continent’s cheapest labour power in Mexico seamlessly; and nowhere in the entire process would they ever have once been forced to compromise and negotiate politically as capitalists must naturally do within their own nation’s legislatures be they the Canadian Parliament or the U.S. or Mexican Congresses.

Just to further nail home this point, I started thinking what a North American Parliament (based on the EU) would look like and the hard numbers further illustrate why the U.S. would be the absolute LAST country to suggest it and thus why we Canadians should stop being Chicken Little with this thing.

north-american-parliament.pngTaking the most recent election data from Canada, the United States and Mexico (specifically just looking at the lower houses in each election), we see that while U.S. capitalists enjoy a Congress utterly devoid of pesky social democrats, both the Canadian Parliament and the Mexican Congress are positively teeming with them.

Then I took the populations of Mexico, Canada and the U.S., divided them by a seat quotient (roughly 600,000 citizens per North American Union Parliament seat) to come up with a breakdown per country.  The results:  Canada would get 52 seats.  Mexico would get 182.  The U.S. would get 500. 

Assuming that no country even changes their electoral system to Proportional Representation (which the EU requires), we see that left-wing parties still hold the balance of power and that’s even before we factor in some sort of a “North American Union Senate” akin to the Council of the European Union.

So, why, oh, why would U.S. élites give up the sweet plumb they’ve got now for a system where the pesky social democrats control the balance of power?

It’s time that Canadians realize that we sound just as ridiculous as that conspiracy theory nus who made the video above (The John Birch Society) when we talk about this kind of stuff.


24 Responses to “Conspiracy theories, a North American Union, and other B.S.”

  1. 1 Houston911truth 8 August, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    thanks for linking the site,

    In reference to your apparent love affair with Chomsky please research the phrases “left and right gatekeepers,” keep Michael Moore in mind, realize that the world doesn’t fit into the left and right paradigm Clinton and Bush apparently “represent,” and you might actually begin to understand a few things about life and politics in general. You might actually graduate from the high school level of political science we were pounded with for years and appreciate the films on googlevideo like Outfoxed, Orwell Rolls in His Grave, The Corporation… etc.


  2. 2 paulitics 8 August, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    Houston911truth. Thanks for your concern for my understanding about life and politics and for taking the time to educate me.

    I quite enjoyed all three of Outfoxed, Orwell Rolls in His Grave and The Corporation (in fact I own two of the three). However the difference between me and you is that I have actually read the, you know, primary documents which these pop-culture fare are based on.

    Also, I can see the difference between an intelligent and non-conspiratorial account of media content (I do strongly recommend Manufacturing Consent if you are genuinely interested in these issues) as compared to the kind of crap published by in that video which requires a massive, ongoing interpersonal conspiracy extending to all levels of government and media to be plausible. Occam’s Razor mean anything do you?

    Now, to be sure, the media is biased and this is the biggest problem facing Western society today. But intelligent critiques actually require some more thought than what that movie presents and the fact that you think that movie was good fare suggests that you perhaps need to spend more time worrying about your own level of political science knowledge and stop ‘selflessly’ worrying about mine.

  3. 3 Paul's Mom 8 August, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    Gee Hon, have I just been “outed” on your blog? Please make sure your fellow bloggers are aware that I don’t send you these gems because I am a right wing nutjob. And sorry for tricking you into viewing the video by deliberately not giving away the content in my email to you, but I wanted you to experience the initial suck-in in the same way that I did. Okay, I confess the devil made me do it. I did find it a good study though, of how the right hijacks a legitimate message and twists it into something bizarre and yet one you know will be strangely compelling to multitudes of people. Scary scary stuff. Take care and give my best to Kim.

  4. 4 Jill 8 August, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    I don’t know about a North American Union but this North American “partnership” site really creeps me out:
    Security Peace & Prosperity (.gov)

    How Orwellian is that?

  5. 5 Wayward Son 8 August, 2007 at 11:54 pm


    I should be someone who is a huge supporter of the 9/11 truth movement for two reasons 1) I HATE George W. Bush and 2) I am a skeptic. I also have a friend who makes amateur 9/11 conspiracy videos. But here is my problem with the truth movement – in researching it I found out that:

    1) 99.9% of it is only interested in the truth if that truth involves that there is a US government involved conspiracy – they accept and discard evidence based on that premise.
    2) the movement is packed full of holocaust deniers.
    3) Alex Jones, who is revered and considered by many in the movement to be its founder is like Rush Limbaugh (but more insane) and believes in every conspiracy known to man and then some.
    4) The movement has no evidence, the scientific community thinks it is a joke – and they are right. For example Popular Mechanics puts out a book debunking 9/11 myths – a book written by referencing dozens of scientists in the relevant fields. The truth movement then counters with a book by Griffin which debunks the popular mechanics book – how many scientists were questioned in that one? Um about zero – but Griffen (a theologian) did rely on experts like Hufschmid who might not be a scientist, but being a holocaust denier you know he is intellectually honest.

    Now of course every movement has its nutbars, but the thing about the truth movement is that it’s nutbars are the very core.

    5) Now of course the reason why scientists and engineers laugh at the truth movement is because they are all in on it – right down to all the college engineering and science students – actually right down to the highschool students – they are all in on the conspiracy – right? I think I am going to scream if I hear another “truther” tell me that the towers falling defied the laws of physics (unless they were brought down with explosives). When I ask them why no physicist seems to agree with them, they respond that the physicists are either afraid, in on it, uncritical, or being lazy (physicists are known for their laziness – University physics courses are kind of like bird courses after all), but irregardless these truthers I have talked to know that they are right (which is impressive considering that none of them have taken so much as a first year university physics course) and that the physicists (all of them) are wrong. That really requires a special kind of arrogance and insanity.

    Well, I have gone off on a bit of a rant. I am sorry for that, but the truth movement really pisses me off. I don’t trust the US government, I don’t trust the media, but unfortunately the group that I trust the least is the 9/11 truth movement.

    Here is a little piece from RollingStone magazine which shows the insanity of these conspiracy nuts:

    Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

    BUSH: So, what’s the plan again?

    CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we’ve decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they’re real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we’ll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

    RUMSFELD: Right! And we’ll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we’ll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

    CHENEY: No, Dick, we won’t.

    RUMSFELD: We won’t?

    CHENEY: No, that’s too obvious. We’ll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

    RUMSFELD: But if we’re just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam’s fingerprints on the attack?

    CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we’re not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

    BUSH: I’m a total idiot who can barely read, so I’ll buy that. But I’ve got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don’t we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

    RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don’t understand. It’s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

    CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism — and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

    RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

    CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash — we’ll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it’ll really be a cruise missile.

    BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

    CHENEY: Because it’s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It’s not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

    BUSH: But aren’t we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

    CHENEY: Mr. President, you’re missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

    BUSH: Right, but I’m saying, why don’t we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We’ll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

    CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

    RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it’s sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we’ll be doing just that in New York.

    BUSH: Oh, OK.

    RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It’s always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure — you can’t pull off any good conspiracy without them.

    BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there’s one thing about Americans — they won’t let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they’d never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

    CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

    RUMSFELD: Well, I’m sold on the idea. Let’s call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we’ll need to pull this off. There isn’t a moment to lose!

    BUSH: Don’t forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They’ll be thrilled to know that we’ll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we’re going to make martyrs — why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn’t the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

    RUMSFELD: Oh, they’ll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the “Big Wedding”!

    ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

  6. 6 Wayward Son 8 August, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    I don’t know why it posted the second part of my post a second time.


  7. 7 Jonny 9 August, 2007 at 3:02 am

    It’s not the governments who want it, per se. You don’t see any Parliament or Congress involved in a “NAU” or the Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAFTA-plus/NAU).

    It’s the businesses who want it, who are meeting with our leaders in Montebello, QU for the third SPP meeting.

    Yes, you can see this with the big corporates, the NACC and CCCE setting the agenda and wanting decreased regulation and labour laws, and one security perimeter (which by default gives deference to the US). You see it in the Conservative chair control of the Commons Committee on Intl. Trade using the Conservative “manual” to disrupt witnesses like Prof. Gordon Laxer and Council of Canadians’ Maude Barlow.

    Although I’m not sure that manifest destiny is so far off, considering recent American military ventures…Project for a New American Century would have seemed like a conspiracy theory a while ago.

  8. 8 Jonny 9 August, 2007 at 3:05 am

    I also urge you to read this, with concrete references:

    At least contact your MP to see what their view of SPP is.

  9. 9 paulitics 9 August, 2007 at 8:44 am

    Jonny – my entire thesis is that a formal North American Union is precisely NOT what corporate elites want. They want economic integration for highly mobile capital but they do not want the secondary need for political and institutional integration and thus would NEVER actually ask for an EU or North America.

    Anybody can see that they want their capital to be able to move more easily between the three countries but that’s not political integration. It’s, quite obviously, the worst of all worlds for everybody involved except the capitalists.


    Wayward Son – I deleted the part of your post that got duplicated for you.

  10. 10 Polly Jones 9 August, 2007 at 10:15 am

    I hear ya…seems pretty straightforward to me. The would no more want to formally integrate us than they would want to successfully patrol the Mexican border.

    I’m really confused by the first commenter…but, oh well.

  11. 11 Christie 10 August, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Paul! I haven’t forgotten, I just don’t have internet access at home and (of course) have limited internet access at work. However if you contact me at my work e-mail we could discuss things that way. Is there an e-mail I could reach you at (I don’t want to publicly post my work e-mail address)

  12. 12 Steve 17 August, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    Details of the NAU/SPP deal

    look around..there a war going on in Iraq and the US this kind of crap on North America?

    You can bet your a$$ it’s not Canada or Mexico convincing the US on this.

    Who’s is on the middle connecting the two catching the door swing both ways?

    This is a crappy deal that should be avoided like the plague.

  13. 13 paulitics 17 August, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    Steve – I agree with you whole-heartedly that we should avoid the SPP at all costs. My contention was merely that it will NOT lead to an EU-style North American Union and that, oddly enough in many respects, an EU-style North American Union would be better than the horrible deal that the SPP will be.

    However I would do you one better and argue that not only should we avoid the SPP, but we should also withdraw from NAFTA and follow Chavez’s lead and withdraw from the WTO and IMF as well.

  14. 14 Aaron 17 August, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    You might like Helleiner’s latest book:

    Also, the SPP, NAU and AMERO all exist on different degrees of economic integration.

    Economic integration generally leads to political integration (We really on have the EU’s example – it started with the Treaty of Rome). It would take decades to go from an economic to a political regime, and any number of factors could change the arrangement of seats in the proposed international parliament. Even now, we see much of the EU drifting rightward.

  15. 15 Juan Carlos Cruz 27 August, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Hello there, i like this blog site a lot. The US left is real weak, i don’t know why americans don’t like socialism, when in fact socialism is the next-stage in evolution of politics. And you are right, only socialism can save this country

  16. 16 Falconmyst 24 September, 2007 at 11:16 am

    “For instance, did you know that everything which is reported in the media is controlled by the Freemasons and other secret, shadowy organizations who are all either associated with communism or who are at least sympathetic to it?

    I know, I was surprised too.’

    I did not catch one mention of the Freemasons in the video clip of the media you provided – a little misleading here, or just plain false.

  17. 17 paulitics 24 September, 2007 at 11:39 am


    JBS has talked at length about freemasons elsewhere. Here, as you know, they focussed on the “other secret, shadowy organizations who are all either associated with communism or who are at least sympathetic to it”.

  18. 19 JBS 24 October, 2007 at 9:54 am

    For more on the NAU, download the Oct. 15 issue of The New American magazine, for free:

    It’s about 4 MB. Enjoy!

  19. 20 Michael 17 April, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Obviously you didn’t pay much attention in logic class. The point is control. The world is growing towards a one world government anyway, but whoever gets there first is going to have the largest hand in scooping profits. Eric Blair, better known as George Orwell who worked during WWII deep within the British Propaganda Dept., wrote about exactly this thing. He had envisioned something a little bit more immediate but here we are about 50 years later on the brink of his prophecy’s fulfillment. I’m not afraid of Canada or Mexico, one being more progressive and the other more reactionary, I’m worried about our Bill of Rights. Communism has nothing to do with this excepting that Communism is now our only way out. Karl MArx warned us in 1848 against Free Trade, we chose not to listen and now we are about to see the very real enslavement of the entire human race in so-called free trade zones.

  20. 21 alafdia 9 November, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Are you very busy at the moment? buy nolvadex uk buy nolvadex uk Thank you very much.

    Thank you, very well. buy nolvadex online buy nolvadex on the net
    buy nolvadex on the net Bye-bye!

  21. 22 Judy Howard 20 January, 2012 at 8:01 am

    I’m asking this because I have heard about it, basically the statements have been that the US, Canada, and Mexico want to create a European Union style organization, with a “superhighway” through the 3 countries. Can someone give me some definite, reliable sources on this?

  22. 23 james bauer 14 January, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    I really like what you guys are usually up too. Such clever work and
    coverage! Keep up the good works guys I’ve included you guys
    to my blogroll.

  1. 1 National Debt and Our Federal Reserve - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums Trackback on 2 November, 2007 at 8:27 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 855,373 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: