NORTH AMERICA and ‘THE ART OF THE DEAL’:
Trump’s Canada ‘joke’ sparks Hegelian dialectic toward North American ‘economic union’
O’Leary: Distinguish between Trump noise, signal
‘NOBODY SAID YOU HAVE TO SELL YOUR SOVEREIGNTY, BUT MANY CANADIANS ARE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING THE ECONOMIC UNION’
COMMON CURRENCY, PASSPORT,
TARIFFS, DEFENSE
Tim Porter, CircumspectNews.com
January 15, 2025
The “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” model for resolving controversy, commonly attributed to 19th-century philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, was not his original concept. In town markets, bazaars and negotiations for thousands of years, some form of “Hegelian dialectic” has been a common means to scheme for advantage in establishing the price of goods, resolving conflict and achieving political objectives.
Hegel’s notoriety comes mainly from the world’s assortment of elitist, monopolist, collectivist humanists and atheists, including Fabian socialists, Marxists and “progressives.” Together, they have weaponized a series of incremental, dialectic “progressions” toward achieving their ultimate globalist, authoritarian objective.
Their dialectic has been audaciously expanded to include a seemingly endless conflict over truth. Their “truth” is defined as subjective and ever changing, suited only for their immediate purposes toward a socialist world.
So, in their view (or, in their “truth”), the humanist dialectic model is meant to determine who will be the latest author of truth, rather than simply to determine the most accurate understanding of truth’s constancy.
The Art of the Deal
There is no hard evidence that Trump has consciously bought in to the aberrant humanist dialectic philosophy. But his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, does display a reliance upon time-tested, hard-bargaining methods.
Trump has a big, tough approach to successful deal making in a big-business world. That in turn allows him the unique ability to identify the deceptive, Hegelian-dialectic tactics used by globalists to create constant crises and conflicts. He has also shown himself to be capable of withstanding extreme countermoves, lawfare, and threats.
Trump relishes being characterized as bold, bombastic and unpredictable. It only serves his purpose in further pursuit of the art of the deal. Being determined to deal from a position of strength, Trump’s opening position oftentimes appears outrageously antithetical (a way-out opposite) to the thesis (perceived reality) of those with whom he seeks to negotiate.
Their task is to suppress their uncertainty and trepidation of Trump so they can accurately determine how far he will move his position toward theirs to reach a synthesis for agreement. Trump insists their uncertainty results in reaching agreements further in his direction.
Numerous examples of this dynamic can be cited in discussion of Trump’s deal making. One of the latest possible examples could involve his grandest concept yet — no less than the future of North America.
Canada: 51st state?
Preparing for his coming inauguration, President-elect Trump has been busy at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, lining up his administrative appointments and agenda.
Then, seemingly from out of nowhere, posts from Trump appeared on social media promoting the idea that since the Canadian economy is “subsidized” by an enormous trade dependence on the U.S., it should become the 51st US state.
Trump continued with the Canada statehood theme even throughout a Mar-a-Lago visit by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with whom Trump joked about becoming Canada’s governor. Trump’s statehood comments, so antithetical to Canadian national sovereignty, have brought a rousing chorus of boos from many Canadians on social media.
The synthesis: “economic union”
Investor Kevin O’Leary, who also is a bombastic deal negotiator of Shark Tank fame, is another Canadian who recently visited President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
O’Leary has insisted in a number of recent interviews that Trump’s joke about Canada statehood is merely bombastic noise to begin a dialogue, even as he signals that his real objective — to which O’Leary is in agreement — is an “economic union” of the two nations that would resemble the development of the European Union.
“Nobody said you have to sell your sovereignty,” to US statehood, O’Leary told Canadian media outlet Global News, “but many Canadians are interested in exploring the economic union.”
“Economic union” is level 4
Chances are, in every major collegiate international business or Global Studies program on earth, there appears a bar graph, chart or diagram of one form or another that illustrates the basic points of the “Five levels of economic integration” (shown below) for blocs of nations.

Beginning with “free trade” zones at level 1, the most advanced stage — political union similar to the European Union — is at level 5. As for the EU, each level of EU integration was brought about in progression through crisis creation and conflict, following the Hegelian dialectic model.
Economic union, characterized by a common currency, harmonized tax rates and monetary policy, is at level 4 of 5. So an economic union as O’Leary describes would be well on its way toward a full political union with an EU-style bureaucracy, having already established common external tariffs (Level 2) and the “free movement” of goods, services, and people (Level 3) for business, labor, education (i.e., “Dreamers,” ), etc., within the bloc.
But O’Leary presents it to Canadians as “only” an economic union, compared to what Canadians would perceive even more outrageous, surrendering to US statehood.
Master class in misdirection
The possibility that O’Leary is right about Trump’s real objective being “only” economic union should prompt consternation among Trump’s nationalist MAGA supporters. But Trump has orchestrated this entire sequence of comments and perceptions across two nations, and it certainly has been a master class in misdirection.
Consequently, despite the glaring example of the EU’s economic union leading to the systematic dismantling of member nations’ sovereignty, the likelihood of O’Leary’s economic union doing the same to the US has so far been lost on some of the most ardent spokesmen in Trump World.
On his January 7 Bannon’s War Room, Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump staffer who chose to take a prison sentence rather than submit to a subpoena from the discredited Jan 6 committee, boldly posted an illustration of North America in support of Trump’s continental campaign.
“Trump is gonna deliver your fortress, Manifest Destiny 2.0,” Bannon exclaimed at the end of the segment. So now, the concept of a globalist, multilateral “North American economic union” is being presented as the projection of Trumpian US nationalism, preferable to the national chaos under Biden in the US, and of Trudeau in Canada.
Bannon should be asked how this North American “fortress” would be any different than the “North American Security Perimeter” and the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” Both were initiated during the George W Bush administration in the early 2000s. Bannon, Infowars host Alex Jones, and the late former CNN anchor, Lou Dobbs, among other nationalists, castigated Bush for years over these initiatives.
On Jones’ January 7 Infowars program, Jones spoke with Canadian journalist Ezra Levant about Canadians’ reaction to Trump’s “outrageous” statehood antithesis to Canada’s national sovereignty, and O’Leary’s synthesis response:
Levant: “So many Canadian liberals are panicking: ‘Oh, this is outrageous.’…. So what’s amazing is Donald Trump’s tweets — That’s all Trump’s done. He sent a few tweets poking at Trudeau, calling Canada the 51st state, and all these liberals are outraged. Really? Well, maybe you found your nationalism and your patriotism again, and all it took was Donald Trump. What d’ya think of that?”
Jones: “And that’s exactly what Trump wants, and…then he has Kevin O’Leary and others come out and say, actually we just want to do more economic deals with you. He first puts pressure on with the threat of tariffs to get their attention, and then now he’s like, hey, let’s be successful together.”
“Actually, we just want….” That is the O’Leary take on Trump’s synthesis right there. Jones has completely missed the significance of the many “economic union” references O’Leary has made, and the magnitude of threat to national sovereignty that it would bring, to both to the U.S. and Canada.
What about Mexico?
Trump’s threat of tariffs has also been extended south, to Mexico. His intended reaction from the Mexicans indicates his threat was on target, completing a continental stereo effect of howls from north and south.
Trump’s concern with existing Mexican trade policy is certainly an accurate one. Mexico has abused the tariff-free provision of the USMCA trade agreement by allowing Chinese import operations and Chinese manufacturing plants into Mexico. That allows China to circumvent US tariffs on Chinese products by having them imported into the US tariff-free from Mexico under USMCA.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responded quickly to the Trump tariff threat by announcing restrictions on Chinese imports and focusing on “North American” manufacturing in order to keep USMCA from breaking apart.
Accordingly, Mexico recently raised tariffs to 35% on finished clothing products imported from any nation not having a free trade agreement with Mexico like, most notably, fellow USMCA members Canada and the US.
Some reports are now suggesting that Mexico may even propose the three nations each pledge to more closely align their external tariff policies with one another. By now, it should be no surprise that such an attempt to forge uniform tariffs (i.e., common external tariffs) happens to be Level 2 of the Five levels of economic integration.
The public is being led to believe that this continental exchange of comments and reactions over statehood and tariffs may result in a synthesis being offered by both Mexicans and Canadians. Those responses give Trump cover, while both would, if accepted, result in a deeper integration toward an EU-style monster bureaucracy.
On many occasions, Trump himself has spoken out warning against falling for the “false song” of globalism, and multilateral “international unions.” The thought of him falling for one now is unthinkable to many Americans.
But Trump’s greatest asset is also his greatest liability. His has cultivated a brand of being a master deal maker. He has shown himself to be extremely good at it, so much so that he gives the impression that he believes he can’t be played.
So, what if O’Leary’s take on Trump proves true, and Trump’s goal actually is “only” a North American economic union? Then Trump would either be a Hegelian-dialectic player himself, or he is being played by the many humanist/monopolist icons who have trooped to Mar-a-Lago to bend his wounded ear, under the guise of paying him the homage that he likes to receive.
No matter the reason, Trump’s joke to annex Canada as the 51st state has accelerated the dialectic toward a North American Economic Union. No joke.