Abandoned Borders

Another North American Union bulletin

Last Sunday we covered the resurgence of conspiracy theories about a North American Union following once-and-future President Donald Trump’s provocative comments about expanding U.S. territory to include Canada, Greenland, and Panama, to which we drew parallels with the consequently revived conspiracy theory of the North American Union.

However, we took no time to discuss the irony of those comments in comparison to Trump’s past fervent advocacy for a southern border wall, aimed at fortifying national boundaries. That of course contrasts starkly with any contemporary interest in territorial expansion, which would involve erasing or redrawing borders to incorporate foreign land. This shift underscores a paradox: a figure once committed to rigidly protecting the sanctity of geographic limits now entertaining ambitions that could fundamentally alter them. The juxtaposition naturally highlights how flexible ideology can become when power and influence are at stake.

Product of stable diffusion (“Bloodthirsty Uncle Sam armed with a sledgehammer smashing down the border wall he only half-built”)

But, what threat does Trump see to the power and influence of the U.S.? We addressed one answer to that question in our final dispatch of 2024: the ascendance of BRICS+. Here, we cited critics like Riley Waggaman, Joseph P. Farrell, and the pseudonymous 009, who each note that BRICS+ and the G20 both embody similar globalist agendas, aligning with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) vision of a centralized, technocratic global governance system. They argue that advancements in AI, blockchain, and quantum computing are being leveraged by elites to dismantle nation-states and consolidate power under regional blocs like BRICS+, facilitating increased surveillance and control through initiatives like “smart cities.”

The North American Union, then, would represent a similar regional bloc.

Though we’ve noted the idea as one now enjoying a revival after first appearing only a few decades ago, others trace its lineage back millennia, like the presumably pseudonymous J Shannon. As Shannon writes in “What Is the Ten Kingdoms Project?” from earlier this month, the concept of a one-world government composed of ten global regions has been linked to prophetic visions dating back to ~600 BC; meanwhile, Trump’s recent proposals echo the Club of Rome’s map dividing the world into ten “kingdoms.” We should note, however, that from our own research, said map seems not to come from the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, but from William Cooper’s 1991 Behold a Pale Horse, which critiqued the proposals from the Club of Rome text.

Behold a Pale Horse, p. 456

Regardless of the map’s specific origins, modern discussions surrounding the North American Union certainly align with this vision, suggesting a regional bloc encompassing the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and possibly extending further south. Critics argue that this reflects a globalist agenda aimed at replacing nation-states with centralized, technocratic governance controlled by elites.

Shannon links these concerns to biblical prophecies, which describe a final world kingdom arising under the Antichrist, marked by authoritarian control, technological sophistication, and global dominance. Prophecies from the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation foretell a coalition of ten rulers or regions under one leader, who will oppose God and be ultimately defeated by Christ. Meanwhile, Shannon also cites more secular analysts who, like those named above, link this vision to contemporary globalist efforts to consolidate power through regional blocs and advanced technologies like AI and blockchain: namely, Patrick Wood, who discussed Trump’s expansionist rhetoric earlier this month in Technocracy News & Trends.

Here, Wood explores how Trump’s policies and rhetoric align with historic technocratic visions of a North American super-state stretching from Greenland to Panama. This vision, which Wood similarly traces to early 20th-century proposals from the Technocracy movement like that featured in our last bulletin, seeks to consolidate political systems into regional blocs managed by technocratic elites.

Wood goes on to elaborate the history of the North American Union concept, linking it to the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent efforts under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama: Bush’s “Three Amigos” initiative in 2005 aimed to integrate Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a “North American Community” to enhance security and economic cooperation. This initiative included the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a supply chain and infrastructure project that faced resistance due to its potential for massive land seizures.

Under Obama, the North American Union evolved into a climate and energy partnership tied to NAFTA, promoting liberalized trade rules and clean energy standards: initiatives which have been critiqued as steps toward a technocratic reorganization of governance, aligning with globalist goals for centralized control—echoing the criticisms that Waggaman, Farrell, and 009 leveled at BRICS+, as described above.

Trump’s proposals represent a dramatic resurgence of the North American Union, reflecting historical aspirations for uniting the continent under a single regime. As Wood notes, commentators like Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec have approvingly compared Trump’s rhetoric to Manifest Destiny, the 19th-century belief in American territorial expansion. Naturally, such discussions highlight the tension between nationalist aspirations and technocratic globalism, underscoring the enduring influence of historical ideas on contemporary geopolitics.

Of course, Wood hasn’t been the only analyst in independent media to address their colleagues’ apparent willingness to abandon their past interest in maintaining territorial integrity in favor of expansionary adventurism: Parallel Mike, Monica Perez, and Hrvoje Morić gathered once more as Cognitive Dissidents (whose coverage we last featured in the aftermath of the 2024 U.S. election) in a conversation that covered the North American Union in its latter half.

Their discussion of the North American Union begins (at ~58:40) in earnest with a clip of the same Kevin O’Leary from our last bulletin using the proposed bloc’s infamous name:

I had two topics that I wanted to talk to [Trump] about. Number one was integrating Canada towards a North American Union for greater strength just period. The world’s a a difficult place these days and most Canadians would like to look at that opportunity without giving up their sovereignty. So low hanging fruit would be combined currency, for example, combining the Bank of Canada with the Fed, things like that […] and [Number two was] just to ask him because this was on Saturday to say these meetings you’re having with Trudeau and finance ministers from Canada with all due respect, sir, a complete waste of time. This guy is gonna get eradicated out of the Canadian political landscape. Give the Canadians a chance to re-elect a leader just like you got re-elected that has a four-year mandate just like you have and let’s get down to business.

Certainly the significance of O’Leary using the term “North American Union” isn’t lost on Morić, who says (at ~1:00:14), “This used to be conspiracy theory, and now it’s mainstream stuff—Fox, CNN—and it’s like, ‘It’s a wonderful thing!’ It’s like, ‘It doesn’t exist, you’re conspiracy theorist! Oh here it is, it’s a wonderful thing!’”

Thereafter, Morić goes on to display the same map we included above, along with a 1976 New York Times article describing the Club of Rome dividing the world into ten regions, before referring (at ~1:01:51) to his own December 2013 interview with “the father of the North American Union, Robert Pastor.” Their conversation digresses slightly to name some of the “controlled opposition” figures who have reversed their positions on such proposals only because now they’re coming from Trump, as we mentioned above.

Soon enough, however, the Cognitive Dissidents begin detailing some of the documents produced over the past century that should have had us contradicting more forcefully in our last bulletin the idea that any plan for the North American Union lacks credible evidence. That evidence includes a 2005 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document titled Building a North American Community, which outlines proposals for deeper integration between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, along with recommendations for harmonizing labor and environmental regulations, facilitating freer movement of goods and people, and establishing a North American energy and emissions regime. It also proposes creating a North American Advisory Council and promoting interoperable military and law enforcement practices.

The Cognitive Dissidents trace (at ~1:06:05 1:13:29) the origins of these ideas to globalist forums, notably a 1980 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, highlighting its influence on subsequent agreements such as the Canada-U.S. Bilateral Agreement in 1989 and NAFTA in 1994—milestones in a broader effort to implement regional integration. Key figures mentioned include: Heidi Cruz—wife of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and investment manager at Goldman Sachs—who participated in the task force behind the aforementioned CFR document; William Weld—former Republican governor of Massachusetts who in 2016 became the vice presidential running mate of Libertarian Gary Johnson—who also participated in that CFR task force; and the aforementioned Robert Pastor, an advocate for regional integration and author of 2011’s The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future.

For the Cognitive Dissidents, the Bilderberg Group represents a key player in shaping these agendas, with agendas developed at its closed-door meetings later influencing national policy decisions, with ideas discussed in elite global forums being eventually translated into policy frameworks over decades. Overall, their discussion underscores the legitimacy of the concerns among so-called “conspiracy theorists” about the broader agenda of regional integration and the unconstitutional nature of supranational policymaking.

Of course, such integration would have significant implications for sovereignty, governance, and the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. Certainly the other countries in that hemisphere would be interested to know what those implications mean for them—and not just Canada and Panama, either. Trump’s threat to reclaim the Panama Canal with or without force has provoked a strong regional backlash throughout Latin America, with Panama firmly rejecting the idea and receiving solidarity from neighboring nations like Mexico, Chile, and Colombia. These threats may risk undermining U.S. standing in the region, feeding ongoing tensions over U.S. imperialism. Historically, Latin America has resisted U.S. dominance, as seen in Panama’s long struggle for and eventual acquisition of internationally recognized sovereignty over the canal. Many remember the U.S. transfer of its former territory in the Canal Zone as representing a broader “Good Neighbor” policy designed to prevent regional alienation and maintain hemispheric stability: a diplomatic legacy that Trump’s aggressive rhetoric threatens to undermine. Meanwhile, conquering the Panama Canal with military force would likely render the canal inoperable—accomplishing the opposite of Trump’s stated desire to make the canal more favorable to U.S. businesses—and divert U.S. resources from its other geopolitical theaters.

Accordingly, some analysts fear that such threats could push Latin American countries closer to China, seeking security and counterbalance against U.S. aggression. China’s strategic investments, such as the $2.8 billion Chancay port in Peru and expanding trade agreements, reflect its commitment to strengthening economic and diplomatic ties in the region. Over the past two decades, China has grown into a top trading partner for many Latin American countries, with trade increasing from $18 billion in 2002 to $500 billion in 2023. In contrast, Trump’s “America First” policies, including potential tariff increases and reduced regional aid, could push Latin American countries to further strengthen their relationships to China, which offers significant investments through its Belt and Road Initiative with far fewer political demands.

But pushing Latin America toward China—particularly its Mexican and Central American components—seems to run counter to the theorized aim to establish a North American Union. (Maybe then our New Year spectacle was on to something in examining whether a second U.S. civil war might happen first, a speculation we first discussed more than a year ago, and which briefly resurfaced in a June bulletin covering Trump’s criminal conviction.) But Trump’s recent rhetoric toward that end runs counter to his previous positions on the need to secure the borders of the continental U.S., as we mentioned above, and placed within this context, his rhetoric isn’t the only one: for example, Rev Laskaris of the RTSG research collective quoted Jackson Hinkle—whom we’ve mentioned once or twice as a figurehead of MAGA Communism, and who has a similar relationship within the American Communist Party that we covered last year—saying in 2023, “The United States needs to invade and liberate Canada.” While that might not be a call for a political merger, it’s not exactly socialism in one country either.

Of course, maybe nothing will come of Trump’s rhetoric—even with the “Make Greenland Great Again” bill submitted this week in the U.S. House of Representatives that would empower the incoming president to negotiate the purchase of Greenland from Denmark. But regardless of whether Trump’s vision represents a genuine policy shift or mere political theater, its implications—both domestic and international—demand careful scrutiny. As the debate unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the enduring influence of past ideologies on present-day politics and the challenges of balancing national sovereignty with global interconnectedness in an increasingly multipolar world. Meanwhile, such discussions revive anxieties about centralized global governance and the erosion of nation-states, reflecting both historical and prophetic frameworks that continue resonating with critics and supporters alike.

As Trump’s rhetoric stirs both historical echoes and contemporary anxieties, its consequences—whether symbolic or substantive—are sure to shape the evolving geopolitical landscape. Here at Radio Free Pizza, we’ll do our best to chart it.