Operation 9/11, the Shock Doctrine, 

and the North American Union


 

By Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Professor of Geography

July 23, 2008

 

Introduction


    Amongst many excellent books and websites, Vicky Davis’ website (http://www.channelingreality.com) 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 larger context: 

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 following:

1) Blowing up key government offices where records
are stored: Murrah Building in Oklahoma City; World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
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 government accounts. 
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 statistical reports.
6) Insertion of operatives on the payroll in key departments in strategic positions.
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, Shock Doctrine.  


    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), Peterson states:

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 (SPP).


     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, 2007 ).  

    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:

The shock 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” permanent.

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 entirely….
 
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 free-market "reforms."  
 
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 war.


    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 Cola.     

    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" abroad. 


    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 explains:

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 the North 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’s The 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 American Union

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 centuries.   


    Whereas it took over a half century to form the European Union, the movement to form the North 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 war;  
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 movement;
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 second Treaty 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 inter-bank deposits.  

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 EU passports supplanted national passports.  A professional bureaucracy grew in Brussels and Luxembourg.

Jan. 1, 2002: The “euro” was introduced and traditional national currencies of the participating EU countries 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 and Canada)


    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 facto shadow 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 access.”

    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 a North 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 of GATT (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 “Guanuanto Proposal.”

April, 2001: Massive public protests disrupted the Summit of Americas meeting in Canada.   

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 CFR language 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 to NAFTA).  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 the NAFTA Superhighway, the first phase of which is the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC).  

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 Americans.


    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 report states:

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 America.
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 for integration.

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 the NAU.  

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 Republic.

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 the Department 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 NACC membership would consist of ten “high-level business leaders” from Mexcio, Canada, and the U.S.  The Council of the Americas website reveals that the following corporations are involved in the NACCChevron, 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’ Summit


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, 2006

    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 Canada stated:

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 public eye.


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 panels.

    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.  Attendees/participants included:

U.S.A.

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 Hemisphere Affairs
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 (Northern Command).
5) Admiral Tim Keating, Commander of the U.S. Northern Command 

6) Deborah Bolton, political adviser to the commander of U.S. NORTHCOM
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 Livermore Laboratory
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

Canada

10) Roger Gibbins, CEO of Canada West Foundation
11) Thomas d’Aquino, Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief  Executives.
12) Wendy Dobson, professor of international business at the University of Toronto.
13) Pierre Marc Johnson, Canadian attorney and former Premier of Quebec
14) John Manley, Canadian attorney and former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada
15) Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Canada’s largest trade and industry association.
16) Ward Elcock, Canda’s Deputy Minister of National Defense.  
17) Rear Adm. Roger Girouard, Canada’s Commander Joint Task Force Pacific

Mexico

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 Community.
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 recommendations include:

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 chips).

    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.”  

Conclusion

    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 of 300

    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. 
 

References

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.