The Futures Of Countries: A Look At The Secession Movements Around The World

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via Doug Casey's International Man blog,

The world is abuzz over Crimea. 95% of the Crimean people recently voted to reconnect with Russia after a twenty-three-year hiatus. Although Crimea had been Russian for over 200 years, Western powers hollered "foul!" over the re-unification.

In addition to Western pundits commenting nightly that such an occurrence is an international disaster, the world seems to be taking up sides over the possibility that any other former Russian territory may also choose to re-unite with Russia, and sabres are already rattling all round.

We tend to forget that, although the world map has looked more or less the same since the end of World War II, it has been the norm, throughout history, for large parcels of property to change hands fairly often. Boundaries move. Countries become larger, smaller, or disappear altogether. Large empires are created, swallowing up smaller countries, sometimes lasting for 200 years or more, then inexorably breaking up into smaller remnants.

Certainly we are heading into a period of dramatic change—economic change, social change, and certainly political change. Whenever such a period occurs in history, changes in the lines on the map inevitably also occur. And, although no major changes have taken place recently, early rumblings can be heard all over the world.

Breaking Away

  • Venice

Venetians send €71 billion to Rome annually, yet only €50 billion returns in services and investment. As they have become "tired of supporting the poor and crime-ridden south," 89% of Venetians have recently voted to create their own sovereign state. Following the vote, Venetians declared independence from Italy. Already, this decision has sparked an interest in Sardinia to have a referendum. Discussions are afoot for Lombardy, Trentino, and Friuli-Venezia Giulia to possibly join them.

  • Scotland

Scotland was an independent country until the 1707 National Referendum, when it became a part of the UK. However, in September 2014, they will vote to decide whether they will leave the UK and become independent. The UK has, since the 1950s, taken a passive position in relinquishing its colonies, and the majority of them have gone independent since then. However, if a colony (now called a British Overseas Territory) wishes to remain a colony, the UK firmly defends that choice. This "let the people decide" stance is extremely admirable and may well be unique in the world.

  • Spain

Spain lost Gibraltar to the UK in 1704, and they want it back. Understandably, Gibraltarians have a great deal more faith in a tie to Britain than to Spain. The Spanish would also like to have Andorra once again. To add to the drama, Spain is having problems over Catalonia and the Basque provinces.

  • Falklands

Across the Atlantic, sabres are also being rattled in Argentina. President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seeks to retake the Falkland Islands, despite a recent overwhelming (99%) vote by Falklanders to remain a part of Britain (and despite a decisive victory by the UK only 30 years ago over the same islands).

In much of the world, small countries are hoping to retain their independence, whilst portions of larger countries are trying to establish their independence. Understandably, they're meeting with resistance, as it's usually the areas that are the net-contributors to the larger economy that seek independence, whilst the areas that are the net-recipients wish to take the conglomerate approach (and to continue to eat their neighbour's lunch).

This is evident even in the US, where those states that are net-contributors are experiencing the same frustration as Venetians and are making noises about secession. Not surprisingly, net-recipient states have no desire to secede. The central government, of course, has a singular goal, and that is to continue to dominate them all. This particular conflict is in its earliest stages, and it will be some time before we see whether secession in the US gathers any real momentum.

A move to break away is invariably a bottom-up effort—created by the people. A move to create a conglomerate state tends to be top-down—created by the political class. Political leaders invariably have an insatiable appetite for gobbling up as much real estate as possible. In other ages, this was almost always achieved through warfare, but today, this is increasingly being attempted through treaties with other political leaders.

Joining Together

The US is most certainly the original model of this type of agreement, and since 1992, much of Europe joined together in a sort of "United States of Europe." This hasn't worked out too well at all, but that hasn't stopped political leaders elsewhere in the world from wanting to imitate the European leviathan.

Each of these groupings follows the EU model to a greater or lesser extent, and in each case, the "unification" is desired, not by the public, but by the political leaders.

In South America there are a myriad of organizations: Mercosur, Unasur, the Andean Community of Nations, ALBA, CELAC, and others. Each country, save poor Suriname, seems to have multiple memberships in the assorted organizations. If some of the associations seem contrived and even arbitrary, they are. All of them are attempts to maximise the level of power through association. Some of the relationships are acrimonious, as each nation strives to maximise its own importance.

To this, we can add the famed BRICS and ASEAN, also notably top-down alliances.

What we see here is the desire by political leaders to construct conglomerates that are as large as possible, whilst the general populations seek to create smaller, more manageable entities. Clearly, the smaller model provides the greatest potential for self-governance (as in the Cantons of Switzerland) and limitation of the size of government, together with a greater opportunity to create economic competition between states.

But, of course, this is the absolute antithesis of what provides power and control to the political class. So, what will the outcome be: the end of the nation state, as libertarians would hope, or something akin to George Orwell's Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania?

It may well be that neither will be fully realised.. Human nature being eternal, the world will always have the libertarians on one end of the spectrum and the dominators on the other. The struggle will be unending, and we shall continue to see empires and associations rise and fall, whilst smaller nations break away at intervals.

The real question is how we choose to deal with this eternal condition. Do we as individuals take comfort in being a part of a conglomerate, with its promise of full equality, security, and cradle-to-grave care, regardless of how insincere (and impossible) that promise might be, or do we choose the smaller, more independent state, with its goals of productivity, greater opportunity, and self-determination?

If the latter, we should examine such smaller states and those that are emerging. Some, like Hong Kong, Andorra, and the Cayman Islands, are well-established. Others, like Venice, bear watching, for they may provide the future of free-market self-determination.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Texas, what about Texas?  Texas should be on the list.

NotApplicable's picture

This guy is being played like a fiddle.

Am I the only one who understands how the "end of the nation-state" is NOT a libertarian utopia, but rather, the absolutely necessary step to create a global government?

That he doesn't even think of it as a possibility in this article displays massive ignorance for someone who writes this shit for a living.

Glad I don't give Casey my money any longer, as they are merely pandering to any fool who might listen. I swear, it's like they've never even heard of Hegel.

idea_hamster's picture

I live in NYC.  Can I vote in favor of TX seceding?

Also, Spain has its own secession movement in Catalonia.  Barcelona doesn't even speak Spanish.

headhunt's picture

Can I vote in favor of NYC seceding?

Skateboarder's picture

Yeah, you can vote, but it's not gonna count for shit.

Anusocracy's picture

You have the nation-state concept backwards.

It is far easier for the world government control freaks to gain control of a handful of large regional nations than three hundred or even three thousand small states.

Installing a world currency, a world military, a world constitution of so-called human rights, a world court system, and world citizenship would be far easier with fewer but bigger states.

Ingroup-outgroup morality is a very powerful motivating force - most of these secessionist movements are based on that - and the continual process of subsuming smaller ingroups into larger ingroups is exactly the method of achieving world governance.

Smaller political entities means more outgroups, which is what will stop the drive for a world government.

Berspankme's picture

NYC has already seceded to the globalists.

Angry Plant's picture

Do you have any idea what losing 3 million barrels a day in oil production from Texas + the gas production  + all the refineries (and good luck building new ones to replace those) would do to the US economy?

rubiconsolutions's picture

All fine and good but I'm just curious - how can I as an individual secede? That is, withdraw my consent? The declaration of independence talks to the "consent of the governed" yet it is impossible to withdraw consent. A person can stop voting which I did in 1992 and do all kinds of things to reduce their dependence on government in an effort to withdraw consent. Ultimately however, one can never fully escape the grasp of the state. A lot of this secession talk is nonsense. Take California as an example. There are those that would carve it up into six new states. In my opinion that would be like carving up a turd into six pieces because each of those new states would still be under the thumb of the federal government. Again though, what about the individual? How can an individual secede? Absent the individual being able to secede the nation state will continue to oppress.

Skateboarder's picture

On God's Green Earth, you are a subject of at least one State. Everyone, even those loincloth-adorned tribal hunters and gatherers who haven't yearned to weild the iPhone just yet. Those poor souls just don't know yet, that they're breaking multiple rules every day just by existing.

rubiconsolutions's picture

So in essence what you are conceding is that all of us are slaves? Our slavery is just a matter of degrees, right? 

Skateboarder's picture

Most certainly. You are only free in your own mind, but that's what they want to take away ultimately too.

August's picture

Don't forget North Sentinel Island. 

Worthy of a an old Star Trek episode:  they no doubt think they are free human beings, bur are actually just living in an open-air zoo.

old naughty's picture

Earthlings (plants, animals, mines, rocks) wish to secess from non-earthlings / humans.

Rumbling is least we need to worry about...eruptions, torandoes, tsunami...


idontcare's picture

Can the rest of America vote for the forced relocation back to the Northeast of all Northeasterners who invaded the warmer Southern US?  Moreover, can we just all agree that any New Yorker found outside of NY, NJ, PA, MA, RI, CN, DE, VT, VA, or DC be shot on sight? [I'd have included ME and NH in the mix, but they don't like NY transplants much either.}

epicurious's picture

All of their services are very limited and overpriced.   The usefullness  of their recommendation come with no alerts or any kind of guidance and a resulting track record of 50% bombs in their junior miner picks.

The man with pointy horns's picture

We already have a shadow global government; an unholy union of banksters, zionists, wahabists and ancient powerful families (Royals, Rothchilds...). They greatly benefited from nationalism and the continued break up and wars of nations.

The sooner we end the nation state and bring in an elected global government with some kind of constitutional global republic the better. The people would control the planet and not the lunatics.

headhunt's picture

You would just have a bigger pile of shit.

The 'have-nots' would always outnumber the 'haves' and would always vote themselves all the shit that the 'haves' has, which would lead to secession and the start of another country.

The disintegration of the US is directly due to the promotion of the separation of people by culture instead of a 'melting pot' society where most everyone had similar goals.

thelibcentury's picture

Yeah because there is definitely no way that the "elected global government" would be compromised by the "shadow global government". 



The man with pointy horns's picture

Well it's going to happen anyway in the next hundred years or so, there is going to be some attempt at world government with the globe being divided up into federal states, kind of like the US except instead of states it would probably comprise the old territory of former nations. There would be a global currency to, the much dreaded global currency, it would be fine tuned so that there is enough money for the global government, the state governments and other smaller branches of administration plus enough money for the rest of the economy.

There would be one major central bank, controlled by the global government, which would print all the money necessary for the world to function. A large portion of that money would go to private banks for the sole purposes of loans, private banks would then loan out money that actually existed and it would be a legal requirement that private banks could only loan money created by the central bank. Of course banks would have to impose a small rate of interest to make enough revenue to operate. There would still be deposits and stock markets to ensure basic capital functions, but these would be far more simpler and subject to far smaller levels of volitality.

Ideally taxes would be low to non-existant and the only purpose for taxation would simply be to reduce the money supply. But economic activity would be bounded by the money supply although there would have to be inert money for the sake of future growth. And if the inert money was quickly tending towards zero then the money supply would have to be increased by a certain small fraction of the total supply on a yearly or monthly basis.

Debasing the currency unnecessarily would only hurt everyone since, under this system, there is no other currency to turn to as legal tender. So if say the central bank was hijacked by private interests, or by powerful groups, it could not print with wild abandon since member states comprising this global government would simply leave -- irrespective of whether such a succession would be 'legal' -- and form their own block or international administration. Pretty quickly the world would be once more divided up into nation states or international groupings of states/nations, so a world government -- should it form -- would not be this unslayable monster should it turn tyrannical.

There would also be this fusion of capitalism and socialism under a global system. So on the one hand all companies are bound to market forces; including the private banks. Companies would not have to pay any taxes but they would have to abide to a few government regulations: minimum wage, work place safety and environmental safeguards. It would not be a mammoth amount of regulations but just enough to ensure that capitalism does not run completely unfettered and so that the workers do not become cogs to the corporate machine. While there would be no bailouts of companies, no matter how big they become.

But there would be the socialist side to. Everyone is entitled to the essentials of modern civilization: a home, electricity, water, warmth, food, healthcare, security and education. But the more rewarding aspects of life can be obtained by all, but only by there own volition. The state isn't going to tell you how to live your life, that is your own responsibility. This is a government which is small and unobstrusive, its function is to keep civilization stable and functioning but without infringing on the rights of the individual.

Thus this would be a system where most of the responsibility resides with the individual to live a fruitful and honest life, although there would be safety nets to ensure that people who become destitute do not become homeless. As for those who have a lot of money which hasn't been invested in something, there would be a societal expectation that they should use such money to provide services to others and to not hoard for themselves or to spend only on personal luxuries.

The danger though is that people abuse the basic services and standards of living which government provides and those individuals who possess huge amounts of money use it only for themselves. Of course where a substantial minority of people abuse a system, any kind of system, it begins to decay and then eventually collapse.


But that's about the best I can come up with for some kind of solution or improvement to the current situation. I don't know how it is going to come about and I'm certain there are far better ways of going about it. Nevertheless it is more conducive to be thinking about remedies to this mess rather than just pointing out about all the shit this world is covered in. Yet some kind of deeper unity amongst nations is inevitably going to happen.

The irony is we're halfway there towards a unified global system, we have all these trade agreements, the UN, a global currency (the dollar) and half the world speaks one language: English. We're halfway there towards one world, one race, one currency and one global language. Nevertheless I don't believe this current setup will be the one which eventually morphs into a global system.

The dollar's days as a global reserve currency are numbered and there are players on all sides who are going to fight tooth and nail during this transitional period. If Russia, China and Germany cannot devise a new global reserve currency then -- with the dollar gone -- there is going to be whole host of trade disputes and hot wars as developed and developing countries fight for resources which are essential for modern civilization: plastics, oils, metals, ceramics, rare earth materials and a whole host of other compounds. Every citizen, from every country, uses everyday items whose components come from a few dozen foreign countries, and no country is truly self-sufficient in either resources and/or the resources needed to maintain current living standards.

You can sneer and deride at globalisation all you want, but for the most part you are benefitting from it and without it you would not be here posting on ZH. And lest we forget civilization is more fragile than ever since only a tiny fraction of people in developed countries are farmers and of those countries some have to import food. If the international scene goes to pot, and it looks pretty close to doing so, and when energy and food prices go through the roof; food security is of the uttermost priority here.

I hear so many here talking about the time when the western governments are overthrown by the people when SHTF, but when shit hits the fan -- and when during this situation oil hast to be rationed and economies grind to a halt -- everyone will panic and all the food will be taken from the supermarket shelves. The supermarkets will not be able to restock fast enough because the global trade networks are FUBARed due to all the wars and trade disputes, once we reach that stage we move on to a long period of food rationing and starvation. The starvation may be bad or catastrophic depending on the size of the countries agricultural sector, so countries like the US and the UK are going to be in a far stronger position.

At any rate you better pray to God that the government holds it together and ensures the agriculture sector is able to produce the food required for people to survive. If not then a country like the UK will go from sixty million to a few hundred thousand in the space of several years. This ain't like in the past where most people were farmers and/or possessed the skills needed to survive, even if a government totally collapsed and a nation became factionallized there would still be enough farmland to remain intact from the chaos and thus ensure the people would not starve to death. There were far fewer mouths to feed and it was not dependent on advanced technology like that of today.

Yeah western governments are definitely overextending their reach and the fractional reserve banking system is becoming ever bolder as it transfers wealth from the people and into the hands of a select few. And yes it is pushing the world into a very precarious place where a huge amount of death and suffering could occur. However it is utter folly to not only wish for such a collapse but to not consider any solutions for the aftermath; solutions which will probably require a huge amount of rethinking about key things: government, money, morality, human rights and responsibilities.

I don't claim to have a definitive solution, but I look at the historical trends of the last one hundred years and from what I see, I see this world coming together and for the West at least it has given us unprecendented luxuries, freedoms and possibilities. I see the long term trend continuing towards deeper globalisation and integration, although we could hit a colossal stumbling block on the way towards a united, just and harmonious world.

Consider also the changing climate, it doesn't matter if its manmade changes or natural ones, the point is some countries and areas could be devestated by global warming and other natural catastrophes. Large parts of Bangaledesh could be flooded, countries once green and lush could become far more arid due to changing rainfall patterns. Now this is going to cause huge exoduses of people who are going to come flooding into neighbouring countries and these countries will not be able to support such a huge influx of refugees. Why is that? Because there is no global system to help support a country devestated by natural events and there are no means of relocating the citizens affected. No instead they are left to fend for themselves and receive aid nowhere near adequate enough.

Without a global trade system, and a certain degree of global organization, countries hit by major natural disasters (think Eithopia) would be totally fucked and millions more would have died. Or consider this; large parts of Japan may have to be evacuated due to the Fukushima contamination. We're talking about tens of millions of people here. Where do they go? China? The Chinese despise the Japanese and would probably love to see their foes slowly die from radiation poisoning. Which countries are capable of supporting a few million more people, are there enough countries which have the capacity to acommodate for so many refugees?

Now these are global problems and ones which both the nation state and the current system are not equipped to handle. Do other countries, and other peoples, just wash their hands of such problems and just watch as tens of millions either die or endure atrocious living conditions.

Like it or lump it we're going to need a better form of global government or adminstration to handle such situations and to ensure security for all. Would such a world government be hijacked by the groups I mentioned in the above post? I think it is unlikely for two reasons:

1. Not one group: the bankers, the zionists, the wahabis, the Rothschilds etc... globally dominates and controlls the whole world. The bankers are divided by corporations and nationalities and they just as brutal to each other as they are to us in their quest for hoarding the wealth of the world.

2. While these groups cooperate to a certain degree for mutual benefit, like theives they just as quickly turn against each other when the moment is right. They don't want a global government or a united world, they need the world divided and they need nations to ensure there are both wars and new currencies and money to exploit (the last three things are especially needed for bankers). But if they could have global power they would share it with nobody. If Goldman Sachs could corner every single financial market and thus rule the world, do you really think they're going to share it with their rivals; JP Morgan for instance? Yes there are monopolies, but there does not exist an absolute monopoly and there is wriggle room for change.


It's one thing to recognize what is going wrong and to unveil the deceptions and falsehoods currently prevailing. Yet it is even more important to think of solutions beside the obvious. I mean sure imagine if say there was a revolution, the US government was removed, the bankers kicked out, the dollar replaced with a new currency, the constitution restored, fractional reserve banking was abolished and the new US government actually controlled the creation of money. 

Just how long do you think it will be before the banksters return, the US becomes embroiled in a series of nation disputes concocted by the real masters of the world, and the complacency of the US people returns? Before you know it we're back to square one again because the world is so fragmented and disorganised. My point is one nation cannot go it alone in this day and age whilst at the same time possess a government of integrity which is not comprised by Zionists, bankers and other shadowy forces. The world is simply too interconnected.

Consider the declaration of independence, for about a 150 years afterwards the US was free of the shackles of imperialism, monarchy and crony capitalism. And then came 1913, the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The rest is history. If even the US cannot escape the clutches of these dark forces by going it alone, what other country can?

We need a more united world and a world government, we need people to actually want those things and to care more for the wellbeing of others. Otherwise this crony capitalism and the dark powers who are enslaving us are going to continue to do so for a very very long time.

Jeff Cosford's picture

I'm going to have to do some real thinking about your thesis. Nevertheless it is well thought out and logical.

However the complexity of the world goes beyond any analysis. Again well done wether it would actually work is a whole different kettle of fish.

Lore's picture

Interesting. Your posts seem a curious blend of insight and innocence.  A deliberate provocation?

"The people would control the planet and not the lunatics."

That seems naïve.  You refer explicitly to the Families, yet fail to see their causal and coordinated role in world affairs?  You think hijacking and corruption of institutions would be alleviated somehow by MERGING THEM and distancing them even further from the people?  Do you not see oligarchical collectivism as the growing source of imbalance and strife in European Union and United States?  Yes, you do, further in your post.  You're conflicted, so maybe it's unfair to be too critical at this point, especially if you base your research on their writings.  Psychopaths are dreamers and destroyers and rationalizers, a cunning, charming subspecies that never takes responsibility or feels guilt over broken eggs or scorched earth. Their aubiographies are pictures of humanitarianism and 'nobility.' Some apparently brilliant and well-intentioned exceptions appear to be the 1% among the 1%, and their efforts are frustrated. 

Political Ponerology

Your utopia -- the ancient dream of control freaks -- would see all the mistakes of history repeated on a grander, more devastating scale: a dominant minority controlling a global plantation in absolute dictatorship, the masses completely subjugated and disempowered: a higher Top sucking harder from a lower Bottom.

"The bankers are divided by corporations and nationalities and they just as brutal to each other as they are to us in their quest for hoarding the wealth of the world.

It doesn't stop 'em from trying.  However you spin it, the Top is the Top.

Your nickname seems appropriate.  Rgds

marathonman's picture

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.  But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game.

Sympathy for the Devil - The Rolling Stones

Balanced Integer's picture

Your first paragraph was a lot of nothing. Your second paragraph, get it.

The trend throughout the history of our species has been an ever-expanding association. From tribes to clans, from city-states to kingdoms to nation-states, to supranational associations like the EU and NAFTA. Human progress demands a one-world government, whether it takes the form of loose confederation of nations, or a constitutional republic, or a totalitarian regime minted directly from the collective nightmares of the libertarians.

If the march of human history sees the disintegration of nations into smaller and smaller associations, then we are not really marching; we are retreating.

Psquared's picture

"We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song"


~ "Won't Get Fooled Again" (The Who)


Omegaman2211's picture

There's no such thing as 'libertarian utopia'. Libertarians are intelligent enough to know utopia does not exist.

AlamoJack's picture

Yeah, but there's plenty of Demo's looking for Udopia.

jefferson32's picture

Full individual sovereignty, as drawn by nature.

(I still +1'd you)

Dick Buttkiss's picture

Sorry, NA, but Hegel is so at the wrong End of History:

That's right, we are heading into a post-historical Era of Biography, as the individual attains his true status as a sovereign unto himself, empowered by the galloping advance of technology that now includes "the Internet of money" — — and the means, therefore, for him to secede on his own, the state not only powerless to stop him but to prevent its own extinction on account of him.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Bullshit.  The state can buy as much bitshit as it wants.

Don't overthink this fucktard;


When fraud is the status quo, possession is the law.

That is all.

Dick Buttkiss's picture

No arguing with a defeatist.

Enjoy what's left of your life.

Totentänzerlied's picture

If by "end of the nation-state" you mean the agglomeration of all nation-states into a single super state, then it is not the end of the nation-state at all. If on the other hand you mean something akin to the Marxist (Young Hegelian, utopian communist) idea of the state withering away, that logically entails the impossibility of a global government. And according to whom exactly is this "the absolutely necessary" step to create a global government? If you can't conceive of a situation where multiple nominal nation-states are effectively governed by a single entity, you're just lacking in imagination (and knowledge of history). "End of the nation-state" therefore "global government" sounds like a textbook instance of unconceived alternatives.

The proliferation of (heavily armed) nation-states is the best weapon against globalist centralization. It's also a good recipe (and prerequisite) for world war.

oklaboy's picture

In Galveston, would love to.

Nick Jihad's picture

That would trigger a rush to move to texas.

messymerry's picture

What, the Texas Naturist Movement???


TBT or not TBT's picture

California is ripe to split itself into statelets. Three or four FSA infested backwaters where physical production still occurs, plus Silicon Valley and SiliconE Valley(or Faketitsia maybe).

Skateboarder's picture

You got:

- Humboldt / Mendo / Trinity and vicinity
- Lassen and vicinity
- Tahoe and vicinity
- Sacramento and vicinity
- Central Valley
- Silicon Valley
- Coastal Central Cali
- Forgotten folks east of the 395
- Sierra Nevadas
- Death Valley and vicinity
- Los Angeles and vicinity
- San Diego and vicinity

And that whole south eastern portion of Mexicali.

They're pretty much statelets already, if you ask me.

Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Will never happen for one reason most people don't consider... water.  California water rights are mind numbingly complex.  It took a century to sort out to the point that people would stop killing each other over water rights.  Splitting into multiple states would bring it all crashing down.

doctor10's picture

Always follow the money. Its about trying to escape fascist debt.If I were a Crimean I'd take the debt-GDP ratio of Russia over the EU-any day -hands down.

In fact, since the USA seems to have decided that the Constitution and rule of Law are an impediment to the goverment, its time to  look more closely at debt to GDP ratios elsewhere in the world.


Scarlett's picture

amaze yourself with Chile.  Net creditor w/ less than 10% debt/GDP.  Rich people will be flocking to it during the collapse.

AlamoJack's picture

Last time I checked (uh, coupla' years?) Texas had the 9th largest economy IN THE FREAKING WORLD.  But then Texas also has Gov Perry, definitely NOT a successionist, no matter what he says so he can catch some clap.  I think the next Texas governor should be either Ron Paul or Daniel Miller.  Yeah, check out or com.

I'm punchin' dem crude oil doggies down the line pardner.


StychoKiller's picture

Statehood for Mooselvania! :>D

idontcare's picture

Texas vs. the Federal Govt.... I'd watch that "match up" on CNN any day.  If I had to lay odds on the outcome, I'd say Texas would be favored to win.  

emersonreturn's picture

quebec?   tibet?  and malibu?

ebworthen's picture

Rising nationalism against the bankster NWO.

Globalization sucks for most individuals and families.

It benefits the banks, corporations, and politicians they bribe to ignore their constituents.