The North American Union "Matrix"
Steven Yates : June 15, 2006

Back in 2004:

I published The Real Matrix, in seven parts (read them here). I had little idea how the process outlined there would accelerate in 2005 and 2006. Indeed, even those still "plugged in" ought to be wondering why the U.S. Senate just gave thumbs-up (62 yeas vs. 26 nays) to an immigration bill that most of the public does not want, and that would clearly be destructive of this country's long-term best interests – educationally, culturally, and economically. Those of us out here in the Desert of the Real are aware that the Senate just took us one step closer to a North American Union. In fact, I do not believe the Senate's action of May 25 can be understood apart from this larger scheme.

In 2005:

1. March 14 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a Tri-National Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010. Three former high-ranking government officials from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico claim this will address "shared security threats, challenges to competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries."

2. March 23 President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The Wall Street Journal, long an advocate of globalism, published North America the Beautiful. "Deepening the integration of our three countries promises great benefits for our citizens,..." the WSJ opined. "Working groups" were formed, with the promise of progress reports in 90 days.

3. April 20 S.853, the North American Cooperative Security Act, was introduced in the Senate (the corresponding House bill, H.R. 2672, would be introduced on May 26). This bill proposes the deep integration of security strategies of U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and the formation of a common perimeter around all three, using the supposed threat of terrorism as a reason for close monitoring citizens of all three nations. (At present, this Act remains buried in committee, but will doubtless surface in the next year or so.) This bill would call for "the development and expansion of public-private partnerships to secure the supply chain of goods coming into North America..." Public-private partnerships, equals corporatism, equals soft fascism (as I have argued elsewhere). It would call for "a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance reporting and risk management of cargo data, improved integrity measures through automated collection of fees, and advance technology to rapidly screen cargo." None of these governments have control over their borders now. Are we really expected to believe they intend to monitor a perimeter that would be thousands of miles longer? The true purpose, to "promote the legitimate flow of both people and goods across international borders." In other words – given that "legitimate" will mean whatever those with money and power want it to mean – open borders, with high-tech surveillance. Note that, while doubtless, there are people who will believe all these combined security measures look good – aren't we supposed to protect ourselves from terrorists, after all? – none are possible without a radical internationalizing of the relevant laws and regulations, and the formation of supra-national globocracies to oversee their implementation. The new cadre of globocrats will answer to the super-elite, not to the U.S. Constitution, or to American voters.

4. May 17 The CFR reported on a "Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security." The official CFR News Release stated, "We need a vision for North America to address the new challenges. The Task Force establishes a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading area that allows for the seamless movement of goods, increased labor mobility, and energy security. We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be bold, and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate problems of the present... They could be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo." Note that North America is being used here to name a supra-national entity, not merely a continent.

5. May 27 The CFR released its book-length statement Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. This statement included the following: "We think that there should be a North American border pass: a card that we can use to enter any of the three countries, without going through the normal procedures for questioning, either at airports or at the border with biometric identification.... We think that we should be on the fast-track to complete labor mobility in North America.... And finally, in a military context, of course, we're suggesting that the relationship can also be deepened; that NORAD needs to essentially expand beyond air defense and into other areas of defense... It needs to be more clearly focused on the defense needs of North America."

6. June 30 The Senate passed CAFTA-DR (NAFTA expanded to Central America and the Dominican Republic) by a vote of 54-45. The House would pass it 217-215 – the closest vote on a trade deal ever, and with clear evidence of arm-twisting and deal-cutting, that indicated how badly the power elite wanted this deal. Bush would sign it on August 2. CAFTA-DR is behind schedule in implementation, because in nations like El Salvador this situation prevails: the local politicians and business elites want it, while the common people don't, and are fighting it.

7. July 27 The "working groups" established by the SPP checked in, with several proposals involving regional coordination and collaboration across national borders on a number of projects. More public-private partnerships had developed. The language, again, used North America as if it referred to a political entity instead of a continent.
In 2006:

8. February 21 Richard Haass, President of the CFR, openly published (in the Taiwan-based Taipei Times) a call to "alter" national sovereignty in a "globalized era," argued Haass, "must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm." The U.S. has already ceded some of its sovereignty through NAFTA and the WTO. It is nice of Haass to imply this.

9. March 29 President Bush met with Mexico's President Vicente Fox, and new Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, in Cancun for their second North American Summit to further the SPP. More working groups, more public-private partnerships.

10. May 15 President Bush addressed the nation, trying to sell his idea of a "temporary guest worker" program. He did not look at all comfortable speaking words, we can be reasonably sure he doesn't really believe: "the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation." To be sure, no one – neither Bush, nor anyone else associated with the super-elite – wanted illegal aliens to move to the front-burner. The American people deserve some kudos for forcing their "leaders" to address this issue.

11. May 25 The Senate passed its amnesty-for-illegals bill. Now, of course, the ball bounces back to the House. The House earlier passed a bill that, while far from perfect, is not as offensive as what the Senate just passed.

This journey through just some of the specifics of the past 17 months ought to bring some perspective to the current crisis, and shed light on the debate. The crisis is of super-elite manufacture. The debate will be meaningless, unless it takes as its starting point the recognition of the super-elite goal to create a regional entity, the North American Union. (Whether it will be called that or not, is anybody's guess.) This would destroy the sovereignty of all three nations, and in particular, would end whatever is left of Constitutional government in these United States.
Once unplugged from the Real Matrix, we recognize, given these specifics (unreported in any mainstream media source) why Bush's speech of May 15 – at just 17 minutes, the shortest of his career – was as banal as banal gets. From the recognition of a hidden agenda at work, we see that Bush's speech was contrived as an appearance of intent to do something to protect our Southern border, when in fact, Bush wants to do nothing. Thus, Bush makes observations like: "For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders..." Well, duh!

And:
"Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people, who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law."

Uh-huh! Yes, they 'put pressure' on government schools. When kids can't speak English, the result is classroom chaos. They 'put pressure' on hospitals by forcing them to close, when the hospitals cannot afford the freebies. Yes, I suppose they 'work hard [and] support their families' – by sending money back to Mexico. I don't know about 'practicing their faith,' and don't know how Bush can know this, either. As for 'leading responsible lives,' what part of illegal does Bush not understand? "They are part of American life?" Many illegals' first loyalty both is, and will remain, to Mexico. Fully 10 percent of Mexico's work force now lives in the U.S. Many Mexicans have already declared California a 'Hispanic state,' and have basically told the "gringos" living there, "if you don't like it, leave!" Some illegals are followers of La Raza, the radical-left cult that wants to reclaim the entire American Southwest for Mexico, and form a communist state called Aztlan. (The super-elite won't let this happen, of course, but if enough Mexicans believe it will happen and act accordingly, their actions will continue weakening the cultural fabric of a unified U.S. Hence, La Raza serves a purpose; it is something the super-elite can use. Lenin's term "useful idiots" applies.)

I could deconstruct Bush's speech, paragraph by paragraph, but that would miss the point; I cannot reiterate enough. Illegal aliens are colonizing America, because the super-elite wants them here. Bush, a globalist (not a 'conservative'), works for the super-elite, not for the American people (otherwise, he would have been considered 'not-electable,' or some such). So, whatever 'proposals' he offers, whether to safeguard our Southern border, or to do anything else, are bound to be as contentless and full of doubletalk as what I've quoted above. Any attempt to put them into practice will be effectively gutted by excessive regulations and stipulations.

Steven Yates, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College.