In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Back: Searchie, Peter, Rick | Main | Angels and Impasto »

July 16, 2007

Steve on the North American Union

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Should we dismiss the possibility that our rulers are trying to fuse Canada, the U.S., and Mexico into a single North American Union just because some zany people are obsessed by the idea? I don't think we should. Evidence is everywhere around us, from the recent, underhanded Kennedy-Bush attempt to fold tens of millions of Mexicans into the U.S. to the North American SuperCorridor Coalition. Here's a well-organized PowerPoint-style presentation that may not be the final word on the subject but that is well worth a ponder nonetheless.

In his new Vdare column, Steve Sailer traces and evaluates some of the connections (and generously includes a link to 2Blowhards -- thanks, Steve!). A great Steve quote:

Who could imagine that the powers-that-be in Washington would ever try to fundamentally alter America behind closed doors and then ram it down our throats in a rush?

(Oh, wait; they just did try that with amnesty, didn't they? Never mind.)

Steve volunteers a point that I hadn't given enough thought to about the practical consequences of fusing together countries that don't share a common language:

The language problems are fundamental. A single language unifies a country into a shared "information sphere." When citizens can understand each other, they can monitor politics across their society and intelligently participate in debates.

In contrast, multiple languages make political awareness difficult for the non-elites. In the EU, power tends to drift into the hands of the self-perpetuating Eurocrats of Brussels, professional Europeans who are either multilingual or can afford translators.

Are these power-grabs being adequately taken-note-of by the traditional media? Are the likely outcomes of these schemes anything that the rest of us find desirable? Why aren't more people holding our self-serving elites to better account? And ... well ... mightn't it be worthwhile reminding them whose compliance their cushy status in life depends on? Hint: That'd be us.

Hey, these are the same questions that I like to ask about the activities and agendas of our architectural, literary, and critical establishments. Funny how these things work ...

I linked to a few more resources in this posting. Patrick Cleburne points out that the righties who were right about GWBush all along were the -- surprise, surprise -- iconoclastic, non-establishment righties. Funny how these things work too.

Joe Guzzardi reports that some black people are starting to wake up to what's being put over on them.



UPDATE: Thanks to Yahmdallah, who points out a very a-propos Salon interview with Jerome Corsi.

posted by Michael at July 16, 2007


It's certainly true that in Canada, where we started out with two languages as a legacy of Britain's conquest of New France, creating a shared sense of culture has been difficult. The French-speaking inhabitants of what became Quebec outnumbered Canada's English-speakers for many years, so they could not readily be absorbed and forced to learn English, in spite of policies that encouraged this outcome. In any case, at one time in our history Canada's two majority languages were French and Gaelic.

It's also true that the fact of having two majority languages has necessarily either favored one of the majority languages, which creates one kind of problem, or the elite that can speak both, which creates another kind of problem.

So yes, if you can avoid this situation, it would be wise to do so. It appears to be happening anyway, though, without any volition on the part of American voters.

Posted by: alias clio on July 16, 2007 12:07 PM

One of the arguments used by the defenders of the NAU, proto or otherwise, is that it will increase American sovereignty. I’m sure you would see an increase in American influence, but not sovereignty. America would clearly dominate any future NAU. But Mexico would exert a strong enough countervailing force, that even should Mexico be ‘absorbed’ by the US, the US would be fundamentally altered in the act of that absorption. In the NAU, the US would become much more Mexicanized than it would be Canadianized.

Canada, of course, is small enough and similar enough to America that it would just be absorbed straightforwardly, without having much more influence than making NAU politics more liberal. Nobody in America cares about Canada now, and they would need to even less in any NAU. But Mexico…

So it comes down again to the question: what kind of America do you want to leave your children and grandchildren? It comes down, as always to questions of politics and culture.

An America that is culturally and politically more like Mexico would be a place that I would not want my grandchildren to live in. What I still cannot for the life of me understand, is why do so many Americans seem to disagree?

What is so wrong with your country that it needs to be radically transformed?

Posted by: PatrickH on July 16, 2007 1:18 PM

If evidence is everywhere around us, then those folks crying out in the wilderness aren't so zany after all, are they?

Hmmm, let's see, "Security and Prosperity Partnership"--I guess "partnership" in security means a common military and perimeter? I guess "partnership" in prosperity means a new common currency, integrated econmonies, and all laws pertaining to? Sounds like combining countries to me. But hey, what do I know? I'm just going by the english.

I like the whole "secure" super-duper trans- national highways. I guess that means they will be guarded by the military (posse comitatus?) against anybody who decides to protest against them? Nice! Military checkpoints on roadways. That's a free country for ya!

I guess something's got to be done when our debt-fueled economy tanks. We only import about 70% of our gas from abroad. And since US oil production peaked in 1971, that figure is just going to get bigger with our population ka-pooming with open borders. Same with manufactured stuff. Maybe the idea is that after the dollar crashes, we get energy and raw materials from Canada and cheap labor from Mexico so we can compete with China. Sounds about right. I'm looking forward to the new multi-cultural North American China.

I wouldn't believe much that comes out of the government, especially what is said by politicians, who we all know are liars. I'm more likely to believe critics and alarmists because at least they are suspicious of government, instead of credulous like many in the population. Its easy to dismiss them because they are forced to speculate about what is actually happening given their difficulty in obtaining facts.

How odd that an empire would expand its borders! Hard to believe, I know. But when the empire of the dollar fails, which crossed the borders of the world, I guess its back to the traditional kind of expansion. Don't forget our 100 year war against any and all comers!

The choice the american people have to make is whether or not they will accept a major reduction in their standard of living in order to keep the traditional country whole, which inclues us not being the pre-eminent power in the world, with all its perks. And also much higher structural unemployment. I'm pretty confident we can stop this, but it won't be easy or short. Get ready for a long, tough fight, because its coming our way soon enough.

Posted by: BIOH on July 16, 2007 1:57 PM

A single nation is never going to happen, but some sort of EU-esque union might be workable at some point. What I see as the main obstacle is the fact that the United States would so clearly dominate a union. Contrast that with the EU, which has no single dominant country.

Posted by: Peter on July 16, 2007 2:47 PM

Just FYI to anyone: had an article about this today. One of the guys who wrote the "swiftboat" thing about Kerry has a new book out about it:

Posted by: yahmdallah on July 16, 2007 3:36 PM

Reminds me of the old communist apologia about having to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Problem is: at the end of the day where's the omelette?

The North American Union: three sovreignties destroyed; a giant corporate entity cobbled together, its subjects stripped of autonomy and moved around like pawns on a purely economic chessboard; little Idahos of independence where the remnant hold out without hope.

Somehow I don't think I'll be able to muster up much love for the North American Union.

Posted by: ricpic on July 16, 2007 8:18 PM

So here's my theory. Next time Quebec tries to make a break from Canada, Mexican U.N. "peacekeepers" will come in their black helicopters to prevent conflict. But of course their real plan is to sneak in millions of compatriots to take over Canada. After accomplishing this brilliant outflanking move, the U.S. will be surrounded. It'll be the carne asada in the maple-flavored burrito, so to speak. With the Mexican fifth column agitating for a North American Union, the Anglo-Americans' will to resist will eventually break. And yes, soon after the mask will drop and Greater Aztlan will come into being!!

Posted by: Andrew on July 16, 2007 11:07 PM

These discussions always get me thinking about "The Nine Nations of North America" a book written in 1981 by Joel Garreau. He argued that North America can be divided into nine regions, or "nations," which have distinctive economic and cultural features. It's nteresting to think about how this idea might fit together with the NAU concept.

Posted by: Chris White on July 17, 2007 7:36 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?