Eric Karlstrom, Professor of Geography
July 23, 2008
Amongst many excellent books and websites, Vicky Davis’
offers an overview of what is really happening in our world. As a former
systems analyst, Davis is trained to sift through vast amounts of
information and find the organizing themes. Here, Davis places 9/11 in its
There was a coup d’etat in the United States. It was an
administrative coup d’etat. The purpose of the coup? To have the
government self-destruct. To make it unable to function. Why? Because
the United States is being dissolved into a territory under the UN
regional governing structure called the North American Union which
ultimately will become the continental governing structure for both
North and South America. A simple statement of the coup from the point
of the perpetrators would be something like:
“The existing framework for government is too constraining for our
multinational corporations. We have more money than government and we
are paying for both government and the military so we should be have the
control. We will establish a “market-based” governance structure in
which the Congress passes only framework legislation calling for the
creation of appointed boards, councils and commissions. The appointed
boards, councils and commission will have both public and private
financing so that they have the power to manage local officials to
implement the policies we seek wile leaving in place the appearance of
elected representative government.”
The means of gaining power over the existing government include the
1) Blowing up key government offices where records
are stored: Murrah Building in Oklahoma City; World Trade Center and the
2) Eliminating hundreds of thousands of government workers and
contracting out their functions to the multinational corporations so
that they control those functions.
3) Capture of government computer systems and computerized theft from
4) Sabotage of government administrative computer systems so that
government workers will be in a state of chaos- unable to do their jobs.
5) Control of the computer systems gives the multinational computer
consulting firms control over government money, operations, and
6) Insertion of operatives on the payroll in key departments in
7) Selling off strategic assets like the Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve.
Leasing U.S. strategic assets like the ports to foreign governments.
Cutting a swath through to America’s heartland by allowing the building
of a transportation system through Mexico that will make the United
States vulnerable to enemy penetration.
8) WTO and “Free Trade” agreements to torpedo the United States domestic
economy- to cripple government and the people. See Naomi Klein’s book,
Here we begin to understand that 9/11 was just one of many strategic
steps in a larger, corporate plan to dissolve the United States into the North
American Union, a regional governance structure to be controlled by the United
Nations. According to Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, the ultimate plan is to
establish a techno-feudal fascist world dictatorship under the control of
international financiers and their corporations (“The North American Union
and the Bigger Plan” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7628)
Another good source of information on the North
American Union is Dr. Daneen
G. Peterson’s website (http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com).
In “About the NAU- What You Don’t Know CAN Hurt You!” (http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/WhatYouDontKnow.html),
Today I will reveal to you the betrayal of the American
people by a government cabal who are bent on destroying our sovereignty
in order to create a North American Union. The miscreants include many
who function at the highest levels in our government. Many hold
membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
Commission. This cabal is deliberately circumventing the U.S. Congress
and “We the People” in blatant violation of our Constitution.
Collectively, they are committing TREASON. If you continue to believe
that the illegal alien invasion is the biggest threat to America, you
will never understand that there is something far more dangerous to our
country called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Steve Watson’s “Officials meet to Implement North American Union” (http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/260207SPP.htm)
also provides a good update on progress of the NAU and SPP.
9/11 as “Economic Shock Therapy”
An emerging consensus of researchers now understands that 9/11 was one
of a long series of “state-controlled, false-flag, synthetic terrorism”
events. If so, what were the goals of “Operation 9/11”? Have these
goals been realized? Certainly, 9/11 provided the pretext and
justification for: 1) invading two sovereign nations that posed no threat to
Americans so that American corporations could seize control of Middle East
oil and profit from the destruction and reconstruction of those two
countries, and 2) establishing a police state in America. Another goal,
less apparent but perhaps of greater importance, was to 3) advance the
foreign policy objectives of Israel. Certainly, Saddam Hussein’s regime no
longer poses any threat to Israel. Thus, goals 1 and 3 have been
accomplished whereas goal 2 is nearly so. In addition, Joan Veon has
concluded that 9/11 was the means by which military and intelligence
services around the world have been integrated.
In this paper, I consider two other possible objectives for “Operation
9/11:” The short-term goal of 4) creating an entirely new profitable
industry (Naomi Klein’s so-called “disaster capitalism complex”) has
been accomplished. The longer-term goal of 5) advancing the timetable to
regional and ultimately, global integration of nations has not yet been
accomplished. However, this latter goal is now proceeding incrementally and
more less in secret under a very powerful “shadow government.”
Herein, I present some of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence
suggesting that “Operation 9/11” was intended as a catalyst to help
usher in the North American
Union. Much of this circumstantial evidence is presented in Naomi
Klein’s The Shock Doctrine:
The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and
Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s The Late
Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada.
Professor Kevin Barrett asserts that in addition to being an example of
state-sponsored, synthetic terrorism, “Operation 9/11” was an
instance of trauma-based mind control- a psychological operation against the
people of the world. (The
Science and Politics of 9/11: Notes from conference in Madison, WI, August,
In The Shock Doctrine,
Naomi Klein reports that Milton Friedman and the “Chicago School” of
economics have for three decades advocated the imposition of “economic shock
therapy” on third world populations in order to force those nations to
accept and implement unpopular "neo-liberal reforms." These "reforms"
always involve three trademark demands- privatization, government
deregulation, and deep cuts to social spending. In her research, Klein
discovered that economic shock therapy involves application of techniques
amazingly similar to those developed in CIA-sponsored
torture and mind-control experiments in the 1950’s and employed in modern
torture chambers such as Abu Ghraib and Guantamo Bay.
Torture to targeted individuals and targeted
societies both use techniques designed to create intense fear, terror, and
confusion, at which point, those individuals and populations are
theoretically susceptible to “re-patterning” according to the dictates of
their "handlers" (or torturers). Gail Kastner, one survivor of McGill
University psychiatrist, Dr. Ewen Cameron’s incredibly brutal, CIA-sanctioned
torture experiments, put it this way: “They (the CIA and
Ewen Cameron) tried to erase and remake me.” This is exactly what the
advocates of radical capitalism wish to do with entire populations and
nations in order to impose unpopular “market reforms” that basically serve
to transfer the wealth of nations to private multi-national corporations.
Klein defines her two key terms as:
Shock doctrine: the use of public disorientation following
massive collective shocks- wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters- to
push through highly unpopular economic shock therapy.
Disaster capitalism: the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of
societies that are reeling from the shock.
Klein states that:
doctrine mimics (the torture process) precisely, attempting to achieve on a
mass scale what torture does one on one in the interrogation cell. The
clearest exampple was the shock of September 11, which for millions of
people, exploded "the world that is familiar" and opened up a period of deep
disorientation and regression that the Bush administration expertly
exploited... Never strong in our knowlege of history, North America had
become a blank slate- "a clean sheet of paper" on which "the newest and most
beautiful words can be written," as Mao said of his people. A new army of
experts instantly materialized to write new and beautiful words on the
receptive canvas of our post-trauma consciousness: "Clash of civilizations,"
they inscribed. "Axis of Evil," "Islamo-fascism," "homeland security."
With everyone preoccupied by the deadly new culture wars, the Bush
administration was able to pull off what it could only have dreamed of doing
before 9/11: wage privatized wars abroad and build a corporate security
complex at home.
That is how the shock doctrine works: the original
disaster- the coup, the terrorist attack, the market meltdown, the war,
the tsunami, the hurricane- puts the entire population into a state of
collective shock. The falling bombs, the bursts of terror, the pounding
winds serve to soften up whole societies much like the blaring music and
blows in the torture cells soften up prisoners. Like the terrorized
prisoner who gives up the names of his comrades and renounces his faith,
shocked societies often give up things they otherwise fiercely protect.
Klein traces the intellectual origins of “disaster
capitalism” to University of Chicago economics professor, Milton Friedman
and his students (“the Chicago boys”), but acknowledges that Friedman's
approach was always popular with multinational corporations. Klein states:
For more than three decades, Friedman and his powerful
followers had been perfecting this strategy: waiting for a major crisis,
then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens
were still reeling from the shock, then quickly making the “reforms”
For economic shock therapy to be applied without
restraint- as it was in Chile in the seventies, China in the eighties,
Russia in the nineties, and U.S. after September 11, 2001- some sort of
additional major collective trauma has always been required, one that
either temporarily suspended democratic practices or blocked them
Seen through the lens of this (shock) doctrine, the past
thirty-five years look very different. Some of the most infamous human
rights violations of the era, which have tended to be viewed as sadistic
acts carried out by antidemocratic regimes, were in fact either
committed with the deliberate intent of terrorizing the public or
actively harnessed to prepare the ground for the introduction of radical
In Argentina in the seventies, the junta's
"disappearance" of thirty thousand people, most of the them leftist
activists, was integral to the imposition of the country's Chicago
School policies, just as terror had been a partner for the same kind of
economic metamorphosis in Chile. In China in 1989, it was the shock of
the Tianenman Square massacre and the subsequent arrests of tens of
thousands that freed the hand of the Communist Party to convert much of
the country into a sprawling (slave labor) export zone, staffed with
workers too terrified to demand their rights. In Russia, in 1993, it
was Boris Yeltsin's decision to send in tanks to set fire to the
parliament building and lock up the opposition leaders that cleared the
way for the fire-sale privatization that created the country's notorious
oligarchs. The NATO attack on Belgrade in 1999 created the conditions
for rapipd privatization in the former Yugoslavia- a goal that predated
The first example of Friedman-style “economic shock treatment” was the
violent Nixon/Kissinger/CIA- engineered
coup and assassination of democratically-elected President Salvador Allende
in Chile on September 11, 1973. After the coup, Friedman himself assumed
the role of economic adviser to the newly-installed dictator, Augusto
Pinochet. Klein recounts:
Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire
transformation of the economy- tax cuts, privatized services, cuts to
social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their
public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the
most extreme capitalist make-over ever attempted anywhere, and it became
known as a “Chicago School” revolution, since so many of Pinochet’s
economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago.
Thus, military shock therapy was immediately followed by imposition of
economic traumas that resulted in hyperinflation. To further disorient the
relatively well-educated and wealthy populace, “Pinochet facilitated the
adjustment with his own shock treatments… in the regime’s many torture
cells.” Thus, Chile provides an example of a U.S. government-engineered
coup and CIA-instigated
reign-of-terror that resulted in simultaneous social chaos and imposition of
a fascist dictatorship and “free market-based reforms.” Immediate
beneficiaries of the economic transformation of Chile from the
“developmental model” to the “corporate-state feudalism” model were
American-based corporations, notably Anaconda
Copper, IT&T and Pepsi
The same formula re-emerged, with much greater violence, in the U.S.
invasion of Iraq. Klein states:
First came the war, designed, according to the authors
of the Shock and Awe military doctrine, “to control the adversary’s
will, perceptions, and understanding and literally make an adversary
impotent to act or react.” Next came radical economic shock therapy,
imposed, while the country was still in flames, by the U.S. chief envoy
L. Paul Bremer- mass privatization, complete “free trade” a 15% flat
tax, and a dramatically downsized government.
Of course, Iraq’s vast oil reserves, once state-owned, were divvied up
between the major oil companies. And, again, when individual Iraqis
resisted, they were rounded up, taken to jails and tortured.
The devastating 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia provided another
opportunity for disaster capitalists. In the chaos immediately following
the flooding, foreign investors and international lenders quickly began
building resorts on large segments of beautiful, now vacated coastline,
thereby blocking hundreds of thousands of fishing peoples from rebuilding
their villages where they had been- near the water.
Thus, Klein notes that the stage for September 11th, 2001, had been set
in the previous three decades:
When the September 11 attacks hit, the White House was
packed with Friedman’s disciples, including his close friend Donald
Rumsfeld. The Bush team seized the moment of collective vertigo with
chilling speed... For three decades, Friedman and his followers had
methodically exploited moments of shock in other countries- foreign
equivalents of 9/11… What happened on September 11, 2001 is that an
ideology hatched in American universities and fortified in Washington
institutions finally had its chance to come home.
The Bush administration immediately seized upon the fear generated by
the attacks not only to launch the "War on Terror" but to ensure that it
is an almost completely for-profit venture, a booming new industry that
has breathed new life into the faltering U.S. economy.... This is global
war fought on every level by private companies whose involvement is paid
for with public money, with the unending mandate of protecting the
United States homeland in perpetuity while eliminating all "evil"
By positing that 9/11 was an example of capitalists "waiting for a major
crisis," Klein supports the official myth of 9/11- that it was carried out
by a small group of Saudi terrorists. This preposterous notion is easily
disproven by overwhelming evidence (Home
Page). It is beyond the scope of this paper to speculate on why Klein
supports the official myth of 9/11- except to note her similarity with Noam
Chomsky and other "left-gate keepers" in this regard.
Regardless, what were the tangible “benefits” of Operation
9/11 for its corporate
sponsors? Indeed, this crisis spawned an entire new industry, the “disaster
capitalism complex,” a privatized and much larger version of what
Eisenhower referred to as the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Klein
The ultimate goal of the corporations at the center of
the (disaster capitalism) complex is to bring the model of for-profit
government, which advances so rapidly in extraordinary circumstances,
into the ordinary and day-to-day functioning of the state- in effect, to
privatize the government… To cite just three statistics that show the
scope of the transformation, in 2003, the U.S. government handed out
3,512 contracts to companies to perform security functions; in the
twenty-two month period ending in August 2006, the Department of
Homeland Security had issued more than 115,000 such contracts.
The global “homeland-security industry”- economically
insignificant before 2001- is now a $200 billion sector. In 2006, U.S.
government spending on homeland security averaged $545 per household…
And that’s just the home front of the War on Terror; the real money is
in fighting wars abroad…. (and in so-called) humanitarian relief and
reconstruction… Now wars and disaster responses are so fully privatized
that they are themselves the new market.... A market analyst remarked of
a particularly good quarter for the earnings of the energy services
company Halliburton, ‘Iraq was better than expected.’
9/11 and the North American Union
Given Klein’s insights into the "shock doctrine," it is not surprising
that cheer-leader-in chief for theNorth American Union, Professor
Robert Pastor stated that in a
2006 interview that crises such
as 9/11 can be used to force governments to accept new economic arrangements
(from Jerome R. Corsi’sThe Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with
Mexico and Canada). In that interview, Pastor suggested that another
9/11 might be needed in order to establish the North
The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States
redefine the protection of their borders. The debt crisis in Mexico
forced the government to adopt a new economic model. Crises… can
force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that
will be required to create a North American community. It’s not that I
want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that
otherwise might not get made.
In The Late Great U.S.A.,
Corsi explains that the crises of World Wars I and II were used by the
European financial elite as a rational for integrating European nations into
the European Union. Similarly:
What President Bush and President Fox (Mexico) previously
specified in San Cristobal (Feb., 2001) as a “partnership for
prosperity” became, after 9/11, a “security and prosperity partnership.”
If 9/11 was an “inside job,” as the evidence indicates, then this shift
from a so-called “prosperity partnership” to a so-called “security and
prosperity partnership” is not a fortuitous coincidence. Rather, it was
part of a long-range plan. But as we see below, Bush and Fox do not act
independently. They are basically following a script written for them by
the CFR (Council on Foreign
Relations). For example, in March, 2005, the CFR essentially
wrote the script for the upcoming Waco conference, at which Bush and Fox
announced the formation of the Security
and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Recall also that Operation
9/11 provided the pretext for
the Bush administration to pass the U.S.A.
Patriot Act and form the Department
of Homeland Security. We shall see that the Department
of Homeland Security is
one of three U.S. government agencies charged with overseeing the Security
and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
Incremental Formation of the European Union
Corsi begins The Late
Great U.SA.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada by
examining the process through which the nations of Europe were merged into
the European Union.
Christopher Booker and Richard North describe this incremental, 50-year plan
to merge the nations of Europe as “a slow-motion coup d’etat; the most
spectacular coup d’etat in history” (from The Great Deception: The Secret
History of the European Union):
Even though he had long since been honored as “the Father
of Europe,” Jean Monnet had always preferred to work behind the scenes,
away from the limelight. He knew that, only by operating in the
shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity, could he one day realize his
dream. What he pulled off….. was to amount to a slow-motion coup d’etat:
the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.
Corsi agrees, declaring:
The European Union was formed by people determined to
destroy the nation-states that had dominated European politics for
Whereas it took over a half century to form the European
Union, the movement to form theNorth American Union has
proceeded much more rapidly. Even so, Corsi notes that both movements share
these defining characteristics:
1) A highly motivated and passionate
advocate/spokesperson/organizer (Jean Monnet for the EU and Professor
Robert Pastor for the NAU);
2) Economic union as means to economic growth, which was
later followed by political union;
3) An expressed desire to foster security and eradicate
4) A desire to establish a collective consciousness that
supersedes national consciousness;
5) A de facto political union that resulted from economic
treaties followed by formal ratification;
6) The blurring of borders and the transfer of passports
from the countries to the “supra-government;”
7) A reticence to acknowledge the real goals of the
8) The creation of a common currency.
In order to understand the incremental process now being utilized to
usher in the North American
Union, it is instructive to examine the sequence of treaties and
economic agreements that lead to the EU:
December 18, 1951: “The Six”- a group of European nations including
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands-
established the European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
March 25, 1957: “The Six” signed the Treaty of Rome, establishing the
European Economic Community (EEC). Also, the European
Atomic Energy Commission was
created by a secondTreaty of Rome.
October 17, 1957: A European
Court of Justice was
established to settle regional trade disputes.
1960: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and
the UK set up the European
Free Trade Association (EFTA).
1965: The three already-established European communities- the European
Economic Community, the European
Coal and Steel Community, and the European
Atomic Energy Community- are merged under the name, European
Economic Community (EEC).
1968: The European
Customs Union was formed
to move toward abolishing duties at internal borders and establishing a
uniform system for taxing imports among EEC countries.
1978: The European
Council met in Brussels,
Luxembourg and established a European monetary system based on a European
Currency Unit (ECU). At first, this was just used for travelers’ checks and
1986: The Single
European Act modified the Treaty
of Rome and set up a
framework for a completely unified European market.
Feb. 7, 1992: The Treaty
of the European Union was
signed in Maastricht, the Netherlands, forming a full-fledged regional
government. A flag was adopted for the European
Union (EU) and EUpassports
supplanted national passports. A professional bureaucracy grew in Brussels
Jan. 1, 2002: The “euro” was
introduced and traditional national currencies of the participating EUcountries
were phased out.
Thus, over a period of 50 years, the European nations were gradually
integrated into a regional trading block, the EU
(European Union), and the borders between EU countries
were gradually erased. Today, in addition to having lost their individual
currencies, the nations of Europe have essentially lost their sovereignty,
as some 70 to 80% of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping
of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in “working groups”
in Brussels or Luxembourg.
Timeline to North American Merger: “Evolution by Stealth”
As the European Union (EU) experience shows us, secrecy is the great
friend of tyranny… Preserving U.S. sovereignty is up to those of us who
still care about freedom and the nation our forefathers bestowed upon us.
In North America, the merger is happening apart from public scrutiny, driven
by multi-national corporations who prefer to make their decisions in the
boardroom, closed to the watchful eye of the public.
A public debate is the only way to avoid seeing a North American Union
created through a stealthy, incremental process in which our public policy
makers are intentionally less than candid about their true intentions.
Jerome R. Corsi, (The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico
In The Late Great U.S.A.,
Jerome Corsi documents that the merger of the United States with Mexico and
Canada is proceeding through secret meetings and formal councils that form a de
factoshadow government. The prime movers of the project are
multi-national corporations in cooperation with government agencies. Corsi
notes: “If a North American
Union emerges, multinational
corporations will have played a major role. Such corporations already
transcend borders in their search for talent, low-cost labor, and market
Clearly, there are two main reasons why incremental and secretive
approach is being used to form the North
American Union. First, such a union would be extremely unpopular with
the majority of Americans and Canadians and would not be permitted if it
were widely publicized. Second, the dissolution of the United States not
only violates the U.S.
Constitution, it also would essentially destroy the U.S.
Constitution and Bill
of Rights. Since all American office holders and military personnel
swear to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, plotting
the dissolution of the United States and the Constitution constitutes
the highest form of TREASON.
Since 1994, the following extra-constitutional treaties and agencies
have been established by and for corporations, and were either ratified,
unconstitutionally, by Congress, or approved and adopted,
unconstitutionally, by the Executive Branch: NAFTA
(North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central America Free Trade
Agreement), the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP),
North American Forum, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC),
North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO).
The following organizational chart of the unconstitutional Security
and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), obtained by a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), indicates the degree of U.S. government complicity and
cooperation in the corporate take-over of America and North America (from
Corsi’s The Late Great U.S.A.)
As per Figure
1, the SPP establishes
three main “ministerial-level” “working groups” headed by the U.S.
Department’s of Homeland Security, State and Commerce. Another at least 20
“working groups” involve participants from the U.S. Departments of Energy,
Transportation, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Treasury.
Though never approved by the U.S. Congress or the American people, the SPP has
its own website (www.spp.gov)
and logo (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Logo of Security
and Prosperity Partnership of
North America (SPP)
Here are some of the notable steps that have already been taken toward
the establishment of aNorth American Union:
Jan. 1, 1994: The North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is
passed by Congress without debate via “fast-track” legislation and quickly
signed by President Bill Clinton.
Jan. 1, 1994: Again, under “fast-track” legislation and without any
debate, the U.S. Congress commits the United States to becoming a member of
the newly-formed World Trade
Organization (WTO). The WTO established
the rules for international trade and investment under the auspices ofGATT
(General Agreement on Trade and Tarriffs).
December, 1994: At the first Summit
of the Americas meeting,
heads of state from 34 Western Hemisphere nations pledged to create a Free
Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) by
2005. The FTAA would
eliminate investment and trade barriers on early all goods and services
traded by member countries, basically extending the rules of NAFTA to
the entire Western Hemisphere.
July 4, 2000: Newly-elected President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, called
for the creation of a North American common market in twenty years. He
called for the creation of a North American customs union, a common external
tariff, common monetary policies, free flow of labor,
Feb. 16, 2001: President George W. Bush and Vicente Fox met at Fox’s
ranch in San Cristobal, in the state of Guanajuanto, Mexico. After the
meeting, both presidents spoke about a prosperity partnership between the
U.S., Mexico and Canada. There were no signed agreements but the White
House website published a joint statement by the two presidents, called the
April, 2001: Massive public protests disrupted the Summit
of Americas meeting in
Sept. 5 and 6, 2001: Mexican President Vicente Fox visited
Washington, D.C. and met with President Bush. The two leaders agreed to a “Partnership
for Prosperity Initiative.”
September 11, 2001: The so-called “terrorist” attacks on the
Pentagon and the World Trade Center conveniently provided a rationale for
adding the issue of security to the then-emerging Partnership
for Prosperity with Mexico.
(Corsi notes that in a parallel manner, WWI and WWII drove the formation of
the European Coal and Steel
Community- that eventually resulted in the EU).
October 7, 2001: The Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) held
a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, titled: “The Future of North American
Integration in the Wake of the Terrorist Attacks.” For the first time,
the the word “security” is added to what had been a partnership
for prosperity. Also, the CFRlanguage
redefined the partnership to be “North American,” thus including Canada for
the first time. (The CFR had
also been instrumental in forming the United
Nations, and has more recently advocated for Western Hemisphere of
North American regional integration as a needed successor toNAFTA).
At this meeting, the CFR stressed
the importance of transportation infrastructure in advancing the integration
of North America. Obviously, this proposal laid the foundation for theNAFTA
Superhighway, the first phase of which is the Trans-Texas
2002: Two conferences were attended by over 100 experts from the
public and private sector, in Merida, Mexico and Washington, DC. They
developed the “Partnership for Prosperity,” identifying specific
economic investments that would stimulate the Mexican economy.
October 15, 2004: The CFR created
the CFR Independent Task Force
on the Future of North America. The task force was headed by former
Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John P. Manley,
former Minister of Mexico Pedro C. Aspe, and former Governor of
Massachusetts and Assistant Attorney General William F. Weld. All
participants are proponents of North American integration.
March, 2005: The CFR task
force issued its first report, titled “Creating a North American
Community.” This report gave the CFR’s
recommendations for what the Waco summit should accomplish later that
month. The report stated their consensus:
To build on the advances of the past decade and to craft
an agenda for the future, we propose the creation by 2010 of a community
to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all North
This was the first time a date was set for integration of North America
(2010) and here, the word “security” was added to the prosperity formula.
Again, as Corsi noted: “What President Bush and President Fox previously
specified in San Cristobal as a “partnership for prosperity” became, after
9/11, a “security and prosperity partnership.”
The CFR report
uses the terrorist security threat to North America as a justification for
creating a security border around the continent. Here, the CFR recommends
that foreigners be screened entering North America, rather than specific
countries. Meanwhile, the borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are
to be opened to facilitate trade and “regional economic prosperity.” The
We focus our recommendations on the creation of a single
economic space that expands the economic opportunities for all people in
the region, and the establishment of a security zone that protects the
region from external threats while facilitating the legitimate passage
of goods, people, and capital.
Three recommendations of the task force include:
1) Adopt a common North American external tariff by
“harmonizing” tariffs to the lowest possible rate between Mexico,
Canada, and the United States.
2) Develop a North American Border Pass with biometric
identifiers (such as implanted RFID chips in people) to expedite passage
through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout North
3) Establish a North American Investment Fund to
stimulate infrastructure development in Mexico.
Clearly, the goal is to transform NAFTA into
a European Union-type customs union, to redefine borders as continental
rather than national, and to develop Mexico economically as a precondition
March 23, 2005: At the conclusion of their Waco, Texas summit, the
presidents of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, declared their
participation in the Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
The resulting “Waco Declaration” specifies that “working groups” will
“integrate” and “harmonize” laws and regulatory structures of the three
nations. In the EU, these
kinds of “working groups” are comprised of un-elected bureaucrats who run
the EU from
behind closed doors. Cabinet-level officials in each government are
assigned to participate in the working groups. In the U.S., these include
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael
Chertoff, and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. The Waco
Declaration refers to these
officials, not as “secretaries,” but as “ministers,” a term commonly used in
Europe. The “working groups” will now report to the “leaders,” a generic
term that avoids referring to the presidents of the countries.
The Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was
never submitted to Congress for debate. Congress passed no law and no
treaty was ratified. No law was signed by the President. So, at most, the
legal status, of the SPP is
that of a press conference. Nonetheless, the conference succeeded in
creating trilateral working groups- in effect, creating a new trilateral
government structure of bureaucrats working behind closed doors.
Significantly, the Waco
Declaration does not directly
mention the United States of America as an entity.
May, 2005: The CFR
Independent Task Force on the Future of North America issued
its full report, entitled “Building a North American Community.” In
this document, the CFR openly
volunteered to advise the SPP:
The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on
how the partnership can be pursued and realized… The Task Force’s
central recommendation is 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.
Thus, the CFR is
here proposing that by 2010 the borders of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico
should be dissolved. So, Corsi notes, just as economic and security
concerns were the rationale for creating the EU,
economic and security concerns are the rationale for creating the SPP and
July, 2005. The Central
American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed
the House of Representatives by a vote of 217-215. As
per the rules of NAFTA, CAFTA expands
corporate rights over the poorest countries in the Americas, including
Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and the Dominican
September, 2005: The North
American Forum held a secret
meeting, it’s first, in Sonoma, California.
March 31, 2006: The White House announced the formation of the North
American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which is presented as a an
advisory group organized by theDepartment of Commerce (DOC) under
the auspices of the SPP
(Security and Prosperity Partnership). The press release stated that the NACC would
meet annually “with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with
senior government officials on an ongoing basis.” However, the press
release did not specify what law or treaty the NACC was
to be organized under.
June 15, 2006: First meeting of the North
American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The International Trade
Administration of the Department
of Commerce noted that
the NACCmembership would
consist of ten “high-level business leaders” from Mexcio, Canada, and the
U.S. TheCouncil of the Americas website
reveals that the following corporations are involved in the NACC: Chevron,
Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Lockheed Martin Corporation, New
York Life, Fed-Ex, Merck, UPS, Wal-Mart, and Whirlpool.
August, 20, 2007: President George W. Bush met with Mexican President
Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the North
American Leaders’ Summit at
Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello in Montebello, Canada (www.spp.gov).
Figure 3. Logo of the North American Leaders’
April 21-22, 2008: Presidents and Prime Ministers of the U.S., Canada
and Mexico met in North American Leaders’ Summit in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The secret meeting of the North American Forum in Banff,
On September 12-14, 2006, the North
American Forum held a secret
meeting in Banff, Alberta, Canada. Mel Hurtig, a Canadian author and leader
of the National Party of
What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved
high-level government officials and some of the top and most powerful
business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in
organizing the meeting internationally did not inform the press in any
of the three countries. It was clear that the intention was to keep
this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the
What really is the North
American Forum? It has no business office or business address.
Nonetheless, the meeting was co-chaired by George Shultz, former Secretary
of State under President Reagan and CEO of Bechtel (U.S.A.),
Canadian Peter Lougheed, former Alberta Premier, and Pedro Aspe, Mexico’s
former Secretary of the Treasury, co-chair of the CFR task
force, and investment banker who sits on many United
Nations boards and
The meeting was closed to the press and was supposed to be secret.
However, it was exposed by the Council
of Canadians, who released documents to the press that included the
meeting’s agenda and list of attendees. Such documents were marked “Internal
Document: Not for Public Release.” A spokesperson for the Council
of Canadians stated: “The
NAU represents an elite corporate agenda and to us what is being planned
would be an unacceptable loss of sovereignty.”
About 1/3 of the attendees of the conference were members of the CFR Task
Force. The complete agenda and list of attendees for the Banff conference
are included as an appendix in Corsi’s The
Late Great U.S.A. A cursory glance at the list of
attendees/participants reveals that the Banff meeting was attended by some
of the most powerful individuals and institutions in America.
1) Professor Robert Pastor, Director, Center for North American Studies,
American University, Washington, D.C.
2) Dr. Thomas A. Shannon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western
3) Lt. General Gene Renuart, U.S. Air Force assistant to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
4) Major-General Mark A. Volcheff, Director of Plans,
Policy, and Strategy for NORAD-NORTHCOM
5) Admiral Tim Keating, Commander of the U.S.
6) Deborah Bolton, political adviser to the commander of U.S.
7) Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy (U.S. Department of Energy)
8) Dan Fisk, Senior Director, Western
Hemisphere National Security Council, from within the White House.
9) Mary Anastasia O’Grady, Wall
Street Journal journalist,
the only journalist who attended. However, the Wall
Street Journal did not
publish any stories about the conference.
10) Bill Irwin, Manager-International Government Affairs; Policy,
Government and Public Affairs,Chevron Corporation
11) Floyd Kvamme, Chair, President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology; Director,Center for
Global Security Research
12) Dr. Ronald F. Lehman II, Director, Center
for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
13) Dr. Peter McPherson, President, National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
14) Dr. George Miller, Director, Lawrence
15) George Nethercutt, Chairman, U.S. Section of the Permanent
Joint Board on Defense, U.S.-Canada (Security)
16) Dr. James Schlesinger, Former Secretary of Energy and Defense
17) Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
18) Mr. James Woolsey, Vice President, Booz
Allen Hamilton, former Director of the CIA
10) Roger Gibbins, CEO of Canada
11) Thomas d’Aquino, Chief Executive of the Canadian
Council of Chief Executives.
12) Wendy Dobson, professor of international business at the University of
13) Pierre Marc Johnson, Canadian attorney and former Premier of Quebec
14) John Manley, Canadian attorney and former Deputy Prime Minister of
15) Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters, Canada’s largest trade and industry
16) Ward Elcock, Canda’s Deputy Minister of National Defense.
17) Rear Adm. Roger Girouard, Canada’s Commander Joint
Task Force Pacific
18) Andres Rozenthal, president of Consejo
Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales, a Mexican counterpart to the CFR.
Rozenthal was the Mexican vice chair of the CFR task
force that wrote the May, 2005 report, “Building a North American
19) Carlos Heredia, advisor on International Affairs in Mexico
20) Luis Rubio, president of Mexico’s Center
of Research for Development
Topics of discussion at the Banff Conference included “North American
energy strategy”, “security cooperation,” “military to military
cooperation,” demographic and social dimensions of North American
integration,” and “border infrastructure and continental prosperity,”
“continental prosperity and the new security environment.”
As cheer-leader-in-chief for the North
American Union, Professor
Robert Pastor outlined some of the steps that would be needed in order to
consummate the merger of the United States with Canada and Mexico. His
1) New trade corridors built from northern Canada to southern Mexico;
2) Goods and services need to “traverse the borders smoothly” so that trucks
“do not have to off-load their cargoes at the border.”
3) creation of a North American passport with biometric identifiers (RFID
In a speech to Canadian diplomats, American Dr. William Shannon stated
the North American Forum is
a “parallel structure to the Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America” designed to “enhance NAFTA”
to “address the kinds of problems we saw in the immediate aftermath of
September 11,” and to protect “our open societies against threats which
aren’t going away.”
We have seen that 9/11 has performed a valuable
function in the incremental march to a North American Union, allowing
Presidents Bush and Fox to shift their rhetoric from a "prosperity
partnership" to a "security and prosperity partnership." WWI and WWII were
used as justification for the incremental formation of the EU. Thus, both
the NAU and EU are justified on the basis of security and economic reasons.
We have also seen that 9/11 itself was a case of "trauma-based mind control"
in which the same kinds of techniques discovered by CIA-sponsored torturers
in the MKULTA mind-control experiments were applied to the population of
America and the world at large. As such, 9/11 constitutes a violent form of
social engineering (aka "societry') which the ruling elite apply to entire
societies in order to effect rapid change.
Another main tool of the ruling elite is to
orchestrate societal change through managed conflict, as per the Hegelian
dialectic of thesis/antithesis/synthesis or problem/reaction/solution. In
the case of 9/11, our self-appointed managers created the "problem"
(state-sponsored, synthetic terrorist attacks on the WTC and Pentagon).
They were, of course, ready to implement the appropriate "reaction:" the
immediate attack on Afghanistan (plans for which had been drawn up months
prior to 9/11) and the passing of the U.S.A. Patriot Act (which also had
been written years earlier) to jump start the newly-created "disaster
capitalism complex." And, of course, they were also poised and ready to
implement their intended "solution" (or synthesis): establishment of the North
American Union and a new
North American currency. The two long-term goals, of course are to
privatize and merge the governments of the world and establish their
long-sought one-world dictatorship.
We have seen that the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) has
been scripting the merger of the U.S. Canada and the North
American Union. In A
Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Committee of 300, Dr. John C. Coleman
characterizes the CFR as
"the Committee of 300's
'branch office' in the U.S." It was established in 1922 as an American
branch of the Britain's Royal
Institute for International Affairs, which
was the first major front organization formed by and for the Committee
And as Dr. Dennis Cuddy observed in “The North
American Union and the Bigger Plan”:
It is worth remembering that in Stalin’s January 13
address in Vienna, he advocated national loyalties becoming subservient
to regions. And three years later, Lenin in 1916 proclaimed: “The aim
of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into
smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations
closer to each other, but also to merge them.
Stalin's direct quote is:
Divide the world into regional
groups as a transition stage to world government. Populations will more
readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than
they will for a world authority. Later the regions can be brought all the
way to single world dictatorship.
Coleman offers this revelation:
The enemy is clearly identifiable as the Committee
of 300, the Club
of Rome, NATO, the
Black Nobility, the Tavistock
Institute, CFR and
all of its affiliate organizations, the think tanks, and research
institutes controlled by Stanford and the Tavistock
Institute of Human Relations and
last, cut certainly not least, the military establishment.
There is no need to use "they" or "the enemy," except as
shorthand. We know who "they," the enemy is. The Committee
of 300 with its
Eastern Liberal Establishment "aristocracy," its banks, insurance
companies, giant corporations, petroleum cartels, foundations,
communications networks, publishing houses, radio and television
networks and the movie industry; presided over by a hierarchy of
Hollywood conspirators: this is the enemy.
The power ruling America is the power that brought the
reign of terror to France, the Bolshevik Revolution to Russia, World
Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the fall of Rhodesia, South Africa,
Nicaraqua, and the Phillipines, Serbia and the war in Iraq. it is the
secret upper-level parallel government that brought into existence the
controlled disintegration of the U.S. economy and de-industrialized
state of what was once the greatest industrial ppower for good the world
has ever known.
Booker, C., and North, R., 2003, The Great Deception: the Secret History of
the European Union, Continuum Books.
Coleman, J., 2006, A Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Committee of 300, 4th
Edition, Global Review Publications, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, 487 pp.
Corsi, J.R., 2007, The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming
Merger with Mexico and Canada, 241 pp.
Hicks, S., 2005, The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle Blowers, and the
Cover-Up, VOX POP#2, 180 pp.
Klein, N., 2007, The Shock Doctrine; the Rise of Disaster Capitalism,
Metropolitan Books, New York, 557 pp.