Commie News Network | CommieNews.com Blog: 01.07

Wednesday

How Brainwashing Works

by Julia Layton

Introduction to How Brainwashing Works

During the Korean War, Korean and Chinese captors reportedly brainwashed American POWs held in prison camps. Several prisoners ultimately confessed to waging germ warfare -- which they hadn't -- and pledged allegiance to communism by the end of their captivity. At least 21 soldiers refused to come back to the United States when they were set free. It sounds impressive, but skeptics point out that it was 21 out of more than 20,000 prisoners in communist countries. Does brainwashing really work in any reliable way?

In psychology, the study of brainwashing, often referred to as thought reform, falls into the sphere of "social influence." Social influence happens every minute of every day. It's the collection of ways in which people can change other people's attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. For instance, the compliance method aims to produce a change in a person's behavior and is not concerned with his attitudes or beliefs. It's the "Just do it" approach. Persuasion, on the other hand, aims for a change in attitude, or "Do it because it'll make you feel good/happy/healthy/successful." The education method (which is called the "propaganda method" when you don't believe in what's being taught) goes for the social-influence gold, trying to affect a change in the person's beliefs, along the lines of "Do it because you know it's the right thing to do." Brainwashing is a severe form of social influence that combines all of these approaches to cause changes in someone's way of thinking without that person's consent and often against his will.

Because brainwashing is such an invasive form of influence, it requires the complete isolation and dependency of the subject, which is why you mostly hear of brainwashing occurring in prison camps or totalist cults. The agent (the brainwasher) must have complete control over the target (the brainwashee) so that sleep patterns, eating, using the bathroom and the fulfillment of other basic human needs depend on the will of the agent. In the brainwashing process, the agent systematically breaks down the target's identity to the point that it doesn't work anymore. The agent then replaces it with another set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that work in the target's current environment.

While most psychologists believe that brainwashing is possible under the right conditions, some see it as improbable or at least as a less severe form of influence than the media portrays it to be. Some definitions of brainwashing require the presence of the threat of physical harm, and under these definitions most extremist cults do not practice true brainwashing since they typically do not physically abuse recruits. Other definitions rely on "nonphysical coercion and control" as an equally effective means of asserting influence. Regardless of which definition you use, many experts believe that even under ideal brainwashing conditions, the effects of the process are most often short-term -- the brainwashing victim's old identity is not in fact eradicated by the process, but instead is in hiding, and once the "new identity" stops being reinforced the person's old attitudes and beliefs will start to return.

There are psychologists who say the apparent conversion of American POWs during the Korean War was the result of plain-old torture, not "brainwashing." And in fact, most POWs in the Korean War were not converted to communism at all, which leads to the question of reliability: Is brainwashing a system that produces similar results across cultures and personality types, or does it hinge primarily on the target's susceptibility to influence? In the next section, we'll examine one expert's description of the brainwashing process and find out what makes an easy target.

Fictional Brainwashing

Modern literature and film use the brainwashing scenario pretty liberally. It gets to the very nature of humanity: Are we all ultimately reducible to puppets? The protagonist in George Orwell's "1984" undergoes a classic case of brainwashing that ends with the famous concession to his tormentors: "two plus two equals five." In 1962's "The Manchurian Candidate," brainwashing produces a robot-like assassin incapable of overriding the control commands he's been programmed with. "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) positions institutional brainwashing as an option for violent convicts looking to shorten their sentences, and in 1997's "Conspiracy Theory," a mentally unstable, government-brainwashed assassin seeks to prove that some very powerful people have been tampering with his mind.

Brainwashing Techniques

Photo courtesy U.S. Army
American POWs in the
Korean War

In the late 1950s, psychologist Robert Jay Lifton studied former prisoners of Korean and Chinese war camps. He determined that they'd undergone a multistep process that began with attacks on the prisoner's sense of self and ended with what appeared to be a change in beliefs. Lifton ultimately defined a set of steps involved in the brainwashing cases he studied:

Assault on identity
Guilt
Self-betrayal
Breaking point
Leniency
Compulsion to confess
Channeling of guilt
Releasing of guilt
Progress and harmony
Final confession and rebirth

Each of these stages takes place in an environment of isolation, meaning all "normal" social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target's difficulty in thinking critically and independently.

We can roughly divide the process Lifton identified into three stages: breaking down the self, introducing the possibility of salvation, and rebuilding the self.

Breaking down the self

Assault on identity: You are not who you think you are.
This is a systematic attack on a target's sense of self (also called his identity or ego) and his core belief system. The agent denies everything that makes the target who he is: "You are not a soldier." "You are not a man." "You are not defending freedom." The target is under constant attack for days, weeks or months, to the point that he becomes exhausted, confused and disoriented. In this state, his beliefs seem less solid.
Guilt: You are bad.
While the identity crisis is setting in, the agent is simultaneously creating an overwhelming sense of guilt in the target. He repeatedly and mercilessly attacks the subject for any "sin" the target has committed, large or small. He may criticize the target for everything from the "evilness" of his beliefs to the way he eats too slowly. The target begins to feel a general sense of shame, that everything he does is wrong.
Self-betrayal: Agree with me that you are bad.
Once the subject is disoriented and drowning in guilt, the agent forces him (either with the threat of physical harm or of continuance of the mental attack) to denounce his family, friends and peers who share the same "wrong" belief system that he holds. This betrayal of his own beliefs and of people he feels a sense of loyalty to increases the shame and loss of identity the target is already experiencing.
Breaking point: Who am I, where am I and what am I supposed to do?
With his identity in crisis, experiencing deep shame and having betrayed what he has always believed in, the target may undergo what in the lay community is referred to as a "nervous breakdown." In psychology, "nervous breakdown" is really just a collection of severe symptoms that can indicate any number of psychological disturbances. It may involve uncontrollable sobbing, deep depression and general disorientation. The target may have lost his grip on reality and have the feeling of being completely lost and alone.
When the target reaches his breaking point, his sense of self is pretty much up for grabs -- he has no clear understanding of who he is or what is happening to him. At this point, the agent sets up the temptation to convert to another belief system that will save the target from his misery.

Introducing the possibility of salvation

Leniency: I can help you.
With the target in a state of crisis, the agent offers some small kindness or reprieve from the abuse. He may offer the target a drink of water, or take a moment to ask the target what he misses about home. In a state of breakdown resulting from an endless psychological attack, the small kindness seems huge, and the target may experience a sense of relief and gratitude completely out of proportion to the offering, as if the agent has saved his life.
Compulsion to confession: You can help yourself.
For the first time in the brainwashing process, the target is faced with the contrast between the guilt and pain of identity assault and the sudden relief of leniency. The target may feel a desire to reciprocate the kindness offered to him, and at this point, the agent may present the possibility of confession as a means to relieving guilt and pain.
Channeling of guilt: This is why you're in pain.
After weeks or months of assault, confusion, breakdown and moments of leniency, the target's guilt has lost all meaning -- he's not sure what he has done wrong, he just knows he is wrong. This creates something of a blank slate that lets the agent fill in the blanks: He can attach that guilt, that sense of "wrongness," to whatever he wants. The agent attaches the target's guilt to the belief system the agent is trying to replace. The target comes to believe it is his belief system that is the cause of his shame. The contrast between old and new has been established: The old belief system is associated with psychological (and usually physical) agony; and the new belief system is associated with the possibility of escaping that agony.
Releasing of guilt: It's not me; it's my beliefs.
The embattled target is relieved to learn there is an external cause of his wrongness, that it is not he himself that is inescapably bad -- this means he can escape his wrongness by escaping the wrong belief system. All he has to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system, and he won't be in pain anymore. The target has the power to release himself from wrongness by confessing to acts associated with his old belief system.
With his full confessions, the target has completed his psychological rejection of his former identity. It is now up to the agent to offer the target a new one.

Rebuilding the self

Progress and harmony: If you want, you can choose good.
The agent introduces a new belief system as the path to "good." At this stage, the agent stops the abuse, offering the target physical comfort and mental calm in conjunction with the new belief system. The target is made to feel that it is he who must choose between old and new, giving the target the sense that his fate is in his own hands. The target has already denounced his old belief system in response to leniency and torment, and making a "conscious choice" in favor of the contrasting belief system helps to further relieve his guilt: If he truly believes, then he really didn't betray anyone. The choice is not a difficult one: The new identity is safe and desirable because it is nothing like the one that led to his breakdown.
Final confession and rebirth: I choose good.
Contrasting the agony of the old with the peacefulness of the new, the target chooses the new identity, clinging to it like a life preserver. He rejects his old belief system and pledges allegiance to the new one that is going to make his life better. At this final stage, there are often rituals or ceremonies to induct the converted target into his new community. This stage has been described by some brainwashing victims as a feeling of "rebirth."

(See How Cults Work: Indoctrination for details on the thought-reform process that takes place specifically in destructive cults.)

A brainwashing process like the one discussed above has not been tested in a modern laboratory setting, because it's damaging to the target and would therefore be an unethical scientific experiment. Lifton created this description from first-hand accounts of the techniques used by captors in the Korean War and other instances of "brainwashing" around the same time. Since Lifton and other psychologists have identified variations on what appears to be a distinct set of steps leading to a profound state of suggestibility, an interesting question is why some people end up brainwashed and others don't.

Certain personality traits of the brainwashing targets can determine the effectiveness of the process. People who commonly experience great self doubt, have a weak sense of identity, and show a tendency toward guilt and absolutism (black-and-white thinking) are more likely to be successfully brainwashed, while a strong sense of identity and self-confidence can make a target more resistant to brainwashing. Some accounts show that faith in a higher power can assist a target in mentally detaching from the process. Mental detachment is one of the POW-survival techniques now taught to soldiers as part of their training. It involves the target psychologically removing himself from his actual surroundings through visualization, the constant repetition of a mantra and various other meditative techniques. The military also teaches soldiers about the methods used in brainwashing, because a target's knowledge of the process tends to make it less effective.

While the U.S. consciousness was turned to brainwashing in the 1950s in the aftermath of the Korean War, brainwashing has been around for longer than that. Scholars have traced the roots of systematic thought reform to the prison camps of communist Russia in the early 1900s, when political prisoners were routinely "re-educated" to the communist view of the world. But it was when the practice spread to China and the writings of Chairman Mao Tse-tung ("The Little Red Book") that the world started to take notice.

Brainwashing Then and Now

In 1929, Mao Tse-tung, who would later lead the Chinese Communist Party, used the phrase ssu-hsiang tou-cheng (translated as "thought struggle") to describe a process of brainwashing. Political prisoners in China and Korea were reportedly subjected to communist-conversion techniques as a matter of course. The modern concept and the term "brainwashing" was first used by journalist Edward Hunter in 1951 to describe what had happened to American POWs during the Korean War. Hunter introduced the concept at a time when Americans were already afraid: It was the Cold War, and America panicked at the idea of mass communist indoctrination through "brainwashing" -- they might be converted and not even know it!

In the wake of the Korean War revelations, the U.S. government seemed to fear it was falling behind in the weapons race, because it began its own mind-control research. In 1953, the CIA began a program called MKULTRA. In one study, the CIA supposedly gave subjects (including the famed Timothy Leary) LSD in order to study the effects of mind-altering drugs and gauge the effectiveness of psychedelics at inducing a brainwashing-friendly state of mind. The results were not that encouraging, and subjects were supposedly harmed by the experiments. Drug experimentation by the CIA was officially cancelled by Congress in the 1970s, although some claim it still happens under the radar. Public interest in brainwashing briefly subsided after the Cold War but resurfaced in the 1960s and 1970s with the emergence of countless non-mainstream political and religious groups during that era. Parents who were horrified by their children's new beliefs and activities were sure they'd been brainwashed by a "cult." The mass suicides and killing sprees committed by a small percentage of those cults seemed to validate the brainwashing fears, and some parents went so far as to have their children kidnapped by "deprogrammers" to remove them from the influence of cult leaders.

Photo courtesy Keystone/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images
Patty Hearst is caught on surveillance camera during a bank robbery in San Francisco.

One supposed victim of brainwashing at that time was Patty Hearst, heiress to the Hearst publishing fortune, who would later use a brainwashing defense when she was on trial for bank robbery. Hearst became famous in the early 1970s after she was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army (the SLA, which some deem a "political cult") and ended up joining the group. Hearst reports that she was locked in a dark closet for several days after her kidnapping and was kept hungry, tired, brutalized and afraid for her life while SLA members bombarded her with their anti-capitalist political ideology. Within two months of her kidnapping, Patty had changed her name, issued a statement in which she referred to her family as the "pig-Hearsts" and appeared on a security tape robbing a bank with her kidnappers.

Patty Hearst stood trial for bank robbery in 1976, defended by the famous F. Lee Bailey. The defense claimed that Hearst was brainwashed by the SLA and would not have committed the crime otherwise. In her mental state, she could not tell right from wrong. Hearst was found guilty and sentenced to seven years in prison. She only served two -- in 1979, President Carter commuted her sentence.

Photo courtesy Davis Turner/AFP/
Getty Images
Lee Boyd Malvo is escorted by deputies as he is brought into court to be identified by a witness.

Another "insanity by brainwashing" defense hit the courtroom 30 years later, when Lee Boyd Malvo stood trial for his role in the 2002 sniper attacks in and around Washington, D.C. The 17-year-old Malvo and 42-year-old John Allen Muhammad killed 10 people and wounded three in a killing spree. The defense claimed that the teenaged Malvo was brainwashed by Muhammad into committing the crimes, which he would not have committed if he weren't under Muhammad's control. According to "The Brainwashing Defense" in Psychology Today:

Muhammad plucked 15-year-old Malvo from the Caribbean island of Antigua, where his mother had abandoned him, and brought him to the U.S. in 2001. An army veteran, Muhammad filled the teen’s head with visions of an impending race war and trained Malvo in marksmanship. He isolated Malvo, steeped him to his own idiosyncratic, vitriolic brand of Islam and imposed a strict diet and exercise regimen on his "adopted" son.

The argument was that Malvo was brainwashed, and because he was brainwashed he could not tell right from wrong. Malvo was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole. (Muhammad was sentenced to death in a separate trial.)

There seems to be a contrast between an underlying fear of brainwashing in modern society, as seen in contemporary films and literature, and the apparent belief of many people who sit on juries that brainwashing is hogwash. Maybe it's the "it could never happen to me" reaction, or maybe it's just a general reluctance to absolve a criminal of responsibility for his or her crime. Whatever the cause, people seem to distinguish between brainwashing now and brainwashing in the future, the latter of which appears to be the more fearsome of the two. The future of brainwashing, if Hollywood and the conspiracy theorists are to be trusted, involves much more high-tech approaches. And yes, brain implants are arguably a lot scarier than verbal or physical "assaults on identity." If some evil branch of neurosurgery can get it right, we're all doomed to be puppets of the state. Combined with hypnosis techniques, a brain implant might be all that's needed to control a human being's thoughts, actions and beliefs. But most scientists agree that the field of neurology is nowhere close to that level of understanding of the human brain. Likewise, many psychologists believe that large-scale brainwashing -- via the mass media and subliminal messages, for instance -- is not possible, because the thought-reform process requires isolation and absolute dependence of the subject in order to be effective. It's just not that easy to change a person's core personality and belief system.

For more information on brainwashing and related topics, check out the links on the next page.

Lots More Information

Tuesday

SPP: The beginning of a North American Union

By Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center

Is our government working quietly to create the equivalent of a North American Union -- much on the lines of the European Union?

Some charge that such a Union will eventually override our Constitutional government, our judicial system, our economic system and even our currency, which, some speculate, will be replaced by something called the Amero. Can it be possible?

Others say such charges are just another trumped up conspiracy theory of a lunatic fringe.

I can't possibly address every issue and describe the complete history of the situation in our short time together, but I can go over the highlights and give you an idea as to why many of us are greatly concerned and in fact believe we are entering the fight of our lives.

Here's a quick run down.

On March 23, 2005 President Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in what was officially described as a "Summit." The three leaders then announced the signing of an agreement to create common policies concerning various economic and security issues among the three nations.

The initiative is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership or the SPP.

It's purpose?

According to a joint statement from the three leaders, the SPP is to "establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate low-risk traffic across our shared borders."

Desirable or not, such an undertaking represents a radical change in how the three nations interact and cooperate with each other. It is a matter of changed foreign policy, monetary policy, and military policy.

Yet there has been no Congressional oversight or authorization for the undertaking. No funds appropriated.

Meanwhile, since that Summit in 2005, at least 20 working groups have been organized under the SPP to produce memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement covering nearly every issue affecting our daily lives.

Whether or not you accept the idea that a North American Union is being established, clearly it must be acknowledged that a new layer of tri-national government bureaucracy is being created.

As you know, the major debate in the US today is over border security. Our nation is being flooded with hordes of illegal aliens. They are over-burdening our schools, hospitals and social services.

In many parts of the nation, hospitals and services are being forced to shut down, damaging the quality of life of American citizens.

On top of the illegal alien situation, we face danger from the threat of terrorists as Americans are forced to surrender liberty in the name of fighting this threat.

And there is the flood of illegal drugs pouring over the border, straight into our kid's schools.

More than 80% of the American people have demanded something be done to secure the borders.

Yet, the Administration has fought efforts to close the border. Why? It appears obvious in light of agreements made in the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

The SPP calls for "harmonizing" our borders into one seamless entity called North America.

So, under what authority are more than 16 government agencies being organized to create the SPP?

As reported by Congressman Ron Paul:

According to Administration officials, "...The SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States... What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has no role at all in this 'dialogue.' According to the SPP, this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national organizations to 'coordinate' border security, health policy, economic trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States. As such it is but an extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade."

Congressman Paul went on to say the SPP is "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments."

It is important to note that administrators of NAFTA and CAFTA are major participants in SPP working groups. Thus the connection to these trade agreements is obvious and substantial.

According to Article 5.11, under the NAFTA agreement, participating nations must reform their laws to NAFTA regulations.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the US government cannot hide behind a claim of federalism to avoid its "international obligations."

NAFTA, then, appears to be the governing entity for the SPP. That means NAFTA regulations (and ultimately SPP regulations) will supersede U.S. laws. NAFTA courts (and ultimately SPP courts) will overrule U.S. courts. And NAFTA policy (and ultimately SPP policy) will override U.S. labor, energy, environmental, health and economic policy.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is basically NAFTA on steroids.

But how will the Administration move forward to fully implement the SPP without Congressional oversight?

Answer: Fast Track.

Renewed again in 2002, President Bush has been given by Congress the power to freely negotiate treaties and trade agreements with foreign nations.

According to the lobbying group, Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that "the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."

Mexican economist Miguel Picard wrote in an article published in the foreign press detailing the "deep integration" planned for North America. He said there will be no single treaty and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a "merged future" will be implemented through the signing of regulations not subject to citizen review.

Picard concluded by saying the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency.

Who benefits from the creation of such a union? Multinational corporations.

They are the driving force behind its creation. They seek one currency, one set of rules, one controlling entity -- to enable them to move goods and services effortlessly across the border.

Above all, they do not want the public involved in the process.

At a September meeting in Banff, Canada, top officials from all three nations met to outline policies within topics such as "A Vision for North America," and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Top US officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills were in attendance. No media was present. No details of these top level discussions were released.

However, the Toronto Star, on September 20th, reported, "The public has been kept in the dark while business elite have played a lead role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America."

One participant at the Banff meeting didn't like what he was witnessing. Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author said, "We're talking about such an important thing, we're talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning about it, right away you've got to be hugely concerned."

The SPP is not about free trade. Its use of public/private partnerships creates an elite of certain, chosen global corporations which basically become part of government at the expense of their competition and our national independence.

One more major example of how this works is the planned NAFTA Super Highway or, as it is officially called, the Trans Texas Corridor.

This massive highway would be ten lanes wide, with rail lines, utility corridors for natural gas and oil and power lines running down the middle.

It is designed for containers loaded in foreign lands, such as Asia, to arrive in Mexican ports, there to be loaded in trucks and shipped up the NAFTA corridor through the U.S. and into Canada.

As global corporations are now reaping the benefits of using cheap labor in foreign lands such as China, South Korea and Indonesia, now they want to use the NAFTA Super Corridor to reduce the transportation costs as well.

These corporations certainly care little about national sovereignty or security.

The borders would be little more than speed bumps. Truck would not be stopped and inspected. Instead, they would be simply scanned by high-tech gamma ray screening in drive-by inspections.

Nor do they care about private property ownership in their drive for cost cutting.

In Texas alone, some 584,000 acres of private land is scheduled to be taken by eminent domain for the highway. Texas Department of Transportation has the authority to use the "Quick Take" provision, which will allow them to give notice to property owners that they must leave their land in just 90 days.

Even if the landowner disagrees on the compensation -- and appeals the decision, they still must be off the land in 91 days.

As part of the Corridor's public/private partnership, the Texas state government is keeping up its end of the deal by stonewalling every effort to obtain information as to whose property is affected. They have operated virtually in secret.

When news has leaked out about the NAFTA Highway, Texas officials deny it and simply say it is just improving its state highway system.

The Trans Texas NAFTA Corridor is not, however, an improvement project for I-35, as the state claims.

The NAFTA corridor will be a completely separate highway -- a toll road run by a foreign corporation. The state of Texas has signed a 50 year lease with a Spanish company named Cintra. The company will build the highway, run it and collect the tolls.

That lease contains a "no compete" clause meaning that I-35 can not be expanded nor can any other non-tolled competitive highway be improved.

Above all, as goods are shipped into Mexican ports, use of American ports on our East and West coasts will be drastically reduced, costing Longshoreman jobs.

These facts are causing great concern among U.S. labor unions. The corridor will allow free access to the U.S. for Mexican trucks, which means the containers can be moved through the U.S. by Mexican nationals. In addition, the flood of Mexican trucks will not be required to meet U.S. standards for safety.

These are just a very few of the details concerning the SPP. We believe it is the beginning of the creation of a North American Union much on the lines of the European Union.

The game plan is very much the same. The excuse for the EU was trade. But today, according to the former president of Germany, 84% of that nation's laws now come from the European Union.

It begins in secrecy and slowly builds incrementally. But step by step a structure is put into place run by communitarian law and regional governing councils of appointed, well connected, yet unknown and unreachable officials hiding behind public/private partnerships, not answerable or responsive to citizens.

This is why we fear the creation of a North American Union.

The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We are the only nation which was created to protect our natural rights.

The greatness of the American system arises from the fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That means that public policy must be enacted only by elected representatives of the people. This principle ensures that the people can remove and replace policy makers who make policy with which the people disagree.

To harmonize this land with nations which do not share our values and governing principles can only result in a lessoning of our liberty and our quality of life.

To do it in secret, refusing to allow us to engage in debate before such massive changes take place is nothing short of treason.

How leaders are stealthily transforming USA into North American Union

It seems unthinkable. But then, so did 9/11 before it happened.

Can it really be possible that Americans are witnessing a governmental program designed to merge – slowly but surely – the United States, Mexico and Canada?

That question is generating a major amount of below-the-media-radar buzz. In recent months, e-mails and telephone calls have poured into radio talk shows and congressional offices asking: Is there a plan to create a "North American Union"? Will a new currency, the "amero," replace the dollar? Is it true that Mexicans will now get Social Security?

Yet Congress (except for a few representatives like Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul) as well as the establishment press (with notable exceptions like CNN's Lou Dobbs) turn a blind eye – despite major evidence mounting daily.

Just recently, for example, confirmation surfaced that the U.S. government is indeed planning on providing full Social Security benefits to Mexicans – which critics predict will bankrupt the already-shaky system. And a report by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, regarded by many as something of a "shadow government," has called for a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to Mexico and the establishment of a "security perimeter" around North America – rather than securing America's borders with Mexico and Canada.

So, while many dismiss plans to integrate the three North American countries as wild Internet "conspiracy theories," the January edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine – titled "PREMEDITATED MERGER" – boldly lays out the disturbing evidence for all to see.

"The idea that our own government could be engaged in compromising U.S. sovereignty in such a radical way is hard for people to contemplate," said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. "After all, Americans are already reeling from a stunning immigration problem – stunning not only because of the effect 12-20 million illegals have on America's economy, values and crime rate, but also because of the government's refusal to do anything about it. And now they're hearing that perhaps their government has a secret globalist agenda that actually encourages an invasion from the south."

Veteran newsman Lou Dobbs described the merger controversy this way in a recent CNN broadcast: "For any American to think that it is acceptable for the president of the United States and … our government, to proceed without the approval of Congress or a dialogue and a debate and a public voice from the people of this country is absolutely unconscionable. … What they're doing is creating a brave new world, an Orwellian world, in which the will of the people is absolutely irrelevant."

So take a deep breath, and then fasten your seat belt for this guided tour of what the U.S., Mexican and Canadian governments, as well as behind-the-scenes power brokers, have planned for America. Your Whistleblower "tour guides" will be Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi Ph.D., Lou Dobbs, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. Ron Paul, Patrick Buchanan, Joe Kovacs and David Kupelian.

Highlights of "PREMEDITATED MERGER" include:

"Merger with Mexico" by Joseph Farah

"U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies" by Joseph Farah, who surveys congressmen, newscasters and others aghast at secret efforts to scrap the dollar, end U.S. sovereignty and combine nations.

"A North American United Nations?" by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

"Lou Dobbs: 'What they're doing is creating a brave new world'"

"The North American Union: How close are we?" by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., who lays out the troubling evidence for a multi-government plan to merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico

"Mexico ambassador: We need North American Union in 8 years"

"Documents reveal 'shadow government,'" on how a Freedom of Information request resulted in 1,000 pages of confirming documentation

"The NAFTA superhighway: Coming soon" by Patrick Buchanan, on why Mexico seeks 'complete integration' with the U.S.

"Texas congressman: Superhighway all about North American Union," on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's concern over a common currency, borderless travel and even bigger bureaucracy

"Why China dominates NAFTA" by Jerome R. Corsi

"How to survive the NAFTA dollar crisis," by Jerome R. Corsi, including economic advice in the age of the "amero"

"The CFR's vision for a new North America," revealing excerpts from the Council on Foreign Relations' radical 59-page blueprint for "North American community"

"Mexican drug cartels take over U.S. cities" by Joseph Farah, in which U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo reveals how Mexican gangs buy businesses, politicians, power and police departments

"It's the drugs, stupid" by Joseph Farah, on the profound impact Mexico's multi-billion-dollar drug trade exerts on America's immigration crisis

"'Bush doesn't think America should be an actual place,'" by Joe Kovacs, whose interview with Rep. Tom Tancredo reveals that the president believes the U.S. should be merely an 'idea' without borders

"North American students trained for 'merger,'" on why 10 universities are participating in a "model parliament" in Mexico to simulate the "integration" of the three nations

"North American Union major '08 issue?" – a look at a new coalition that is mobilizing grass roots support and targeting Washington lawmakers

"Are globalists evil?" by David Kupelian, on why so many apparently "good people" are so attracted to global government

"As bad as this North American Union plan is," said WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, "it does succeed in making much more understandable exactly why our government isn't stopping illegal immigration. It doesn't really want to."

Thursday

National Guard Attacked, Reatreats at Mexican Border

A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.

The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.

The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.

The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.

Commie News Network | CommieNews.com Blog