USA-Canada-Mexico

We have mentioned North American Group 1 (Canada - Mexico - USA) in several previous articles but there has not been an article yet specifically for that Group. There is not much to say about this group because it is; a) ready b) unique. Nevertheless, there are things to say and we will have an article for North American Group 1, like we did for Western European Group 3.

USA has 336 million inhabitants, Mexico 129,6 million and Canada 40,7 million. GDP per capita (ppp) in thousands of dollars is as follows; USA 76,3, Canada 58,4, Mexico 21,5. Canada's is slightly lower than USA's but there is no big difference. On the contrary, there is a big difference with Mexico. Because of this, there can not be free movement of people in the Group.

EU has free movement of people, products and services. This model would probably stay in Western European Union. Eastern Europe's model is different and could be the standard. In Western Europe, free movement of people would not be a big problem because countries are relatively close in terms of per capita income. So there isn't a big motive to migrate to another country for higher income.

This is not the case between Mexico and Canada - USA. If there would be free movement of people, a large portion of Mexico's population would move to USA and Canada. This wouldn't be good for none of the three countries and especially for Mexico. No country wants a large portion of its population to leave and make another country permanent residence.

There are also racial and cultural differences. The indigenous people of the Americas are the American Indians. These belong in Asian race. Western Europeans migrated after America was discovered and later Eastern Europeans did. In USA, Britons (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh), Germans and Italians have the highest percentages among Western Europeans. Polish, Russians and Greeks have the highest among Eastern Europeans.

In South and Central America it was mostly Iberian, Spanish and Portuguese that migrated. Only in Brazil there were Portuguese but it has more than 2/5 of Central and South America population. In Mexico there were Spaniards. Also in southern states of USA there were Spanish and because of that there is considerable Spanish influence. Percentages of indigenous populations vary significantly in different countries.

Greenland has the highest percentage, 89% indigenous. Countries with high percentages of indigenous people are Ecuador 25%, Peru 25%, Bolivia 20%. Mexico has 7%, Canada 1,8% and USA 1,1%. In addition to these there are many more mixed or part indigenous. Mexico's percentage of indigenous is not high but it has the second largest (90%) of combined indigenous and mixed, after Paraguay (96,7%).

Ecuador also has 90% combined percentage. USA has 2,9% and Canada 5,4%. Hispanics and Latinos in USA is a different demographic group and approximately 19%. Hispanics and Latinos are those who come from Spain or American countries that are southern of USA. Hispanics and Latinos are not a separate race but it has been established as a racial group in USA's demographics. 

Probably a large percentage of them are mixed. Most of them come from Mexico (62%). In top five are also Puerto Rican 15%, Cuban 4%, Salvadoran 3,9% Dominican 3,5%. Approximately 12% (62% X 19%) of USA's population come from Mexico. They are as large in terms of population as African Americans who are the third largest ethnic group, after Caucasians and Hispanics. Latin percentage in Canada is small (1,6%). 

So far, Group 1 is the new NAFTA or USMCA, USA Mexico Canada Agreement. In the future they could make additions and changes but it is not necessary. North American Group is unique and it has a unique model, so it can't be the norm for most groups. Group 1 has only three countries because USA is the third largest in the world in terms of population and Mexico is the tenth largest. Some small countries in the Caribbean Sea could also participate.

Perhaps Mexico fits better with Central and South American countries. Nevertheless it is located in North America and is USA's southern neighbor. USA will have better control of its southern borders in cooperation with Mexico's government. This is an important issue for many people in USA. New NAFTA (USMCA) is already in place. There is indeed heterogeneity between USA-Canada and Mexico.

But the problem is manageable, since the groups will have whatever organizational models are best for their specific conditions. We need to emphasize some very important points. Anti - NWO's compromise plan is not their best preference. Anti - NWO has a much better prevalence plan which NWO will never accept. Anti - NWO's compromise plan, is the best possible compromise plan. All possible corrections were made in NWO's sloppy, insane plan.

Keep in mind that North American Group is one of the Groups in Anti-NWO's compromise solution. In this, Anti-NWO's real elite has tried to partially satisfy NWO, so that it will compromise. It is already very difficult to make NWO accept the compromise solution. It would be impossible to make them accept the other much better plan. In order for that to be implemented, NWO will have to be defeated. For this to happen, the world might have to go through a turbulent period.

Anti - NWO's compromise plan must be compared with NWO's plan. It would be a total chaos, if NWO's catastrophic plan was implemented. According to their twisted thinking, all countries of Americas would be American Union. What is even worse is that they want to implement EU's failed model in all their pseudo-continental groups, American, Asian, African. These people (NWO) are probably completely insane. There is no other explanation.

Two separate Groups in Americas, relate to separation of Western and Eastern Europe. If there is one group in Europe, there should be one group in Americas. That would be a total disaster for Europe and Americas. Separating North America from Central and South America is better for both groups, as it is better for both groups in Europe to separate Western and Eastern Europe.

As in Europe, separation does not have to be alienation. There will be several agreements among groups. It is possible to make agreements between Group 1 and Group 2 in such a way that would bring the two groups very close. Although it is possible, it is not mandatory. Group 1 and Group 2 may choose to be closer with other groups. Also groups can be close to two or more groups.

Establishing relations with one or more groups is optional for all groups, including Group 1. Groups are not obligated to have relations and make agreements with other groups. Like any other group, Group 1 could focus only or mostly in relations within the group. Also groups will determine the level of autonomy countries will have inside them.