An Ominous Signal for the Launching of North American Union?

As reported by the El Paso Times, U.S. military report warns ‘sudden collapse’ of Mexico is possible.

The dots to be connected here are so evident that they barely warrant comment. For anyone needing to catch up in a hurry, a good place to brush up on North American Union 101 is here and here.

The real point of this post is to highlight, once more, the degree to which the NAmerican Secessionist Movement (NASM) is disconnected, not only from its own political mandate, but from the political psyche of the NAmerican public. For further context on this claim, please see last week’s post, NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-the-Wheel.

On any given day we are confronted with events pointing towards the collapse of industrial civilization, entry onto the depletion slope of a Post-Peak Oil world, financial and economic meltdown, the initiative for North American Union, etc., etc. This happens to be the meta-context for the philosophical justification of the NASM. Yet, as has already been stated, as a political movement the NASM is incapable of issuing public commentary on the above events because no medium for doing so, such as a proposed North American Secessionist Congress, exists. The world in general, and North America in particular, sit on the cusp of an historical crisis of unforeseen proportions, yet the NASM is hand-cuffed from offering official and legitimate executive commentary by its own short-sighted choosing.

Without strategy, the option for identifying and implementing tactics does not exist. By virtue of its self-imposed non-voice and invisibility during these times of crisis, the NASM runs the real risk of joining NAmerican Green parties inside a toothless vacuum of myopic navel-gazing and political posturing. Ground can always be recovered; time never can be.

With friends like us, who needs adversaries?

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. Green mountain greetings, Sebastian –

    Thanks for this thoughtful post.

    Indeed, all of in the independence effort are focused on our own communities and states, at least, we are here in Vermont – I feel like we have our hands full preparing our communities for the changes that are upon us, and in some ways, this seems a natural “decentralized” response to Peak Oil, U.S. Imperial actions, and the like.

    I support the creation a NASM, but the idea of the same is, in some sense, antithetical to secession itself, if by secession we mean a decentralizing and relocalizing impulse…

    I’d welcome others’ wisdom here…

    Free Vermont!

    Rob

  2. Rob:

    Of course, “independence efforts” will be focused on where one lives in immedidate communities and states/provinces. I am on record with the opinion that NAmerican nation state devolution/implosion will follow regional lines as opposed to the redundant designations of states/provinces. That is a matter of regional primacies linked to appropirate political will. As example, where and how things currently sit, it is undeniable that Vermont is the flag ship for the Novacadia region, and everyone who has contributed to Vermont’s secessionist status is to be congratulated. However, does that translate into the Vermont secessionist initiative halting once it arrives at being a Switzerland of NAmerica? Is it reasonable to think in terms of 48 autonomous nation states, again following the territorial designations of dated determinants?

    I would argue that the creation of a NAmerican Secessionist Congress (NASC) is not antithetical to a “decentralizing and relocalizing impulse.” That remains the sole responsibility of the immediate jurisdiction, i.e. state/province/region. The proposed NASC is not perceived to be a political entity; its purpose and function would be one of coordination and secessionist marketing, propaganda if you will. Take any professional sports league as analogy. Each franchise is autonomous unto itself and to its immediate market/city/tribal identity. However, each league has a Commission, with an executive voice from every franchise, to promote the sport in general, deal with logistics, etc., up to and including revenue sharing.

    Lastly (for now), the creation of an NASC would finally open the door to the democratic interpretation and determination of “the movement” to its participating organizations. Responsibility and accountability would increase in direct proportion to ownership. As is, we are left on an annual basis to applaud and rubber-stamp yet another “Declaration” that gets arbitrarily and unilaterally foisted upon convention delegates who have been given no input nor say in the determination of the convention “committee” that supposedly drafts the annual “Declaration.” Might it be any wonder that delegate participation to the annual secessionist convention is nose-diving to the point of being out-numbered by curious graduate students?

    There are a couple of simple maxims from the worlds of nature and street wisdom respectively that may apply to the current evolutionary and philosophical hurdle that confronts the movement: “Adapt or perish.” “Ya either grow or ya go.” In these crucial times, for the secessionist movement to not be tactically and strategically running in parallel with the latter is, to quote Talleyrand: “Worse than a crime. It’s a mistake.”

  3. Deep appreciation for your wisdom here, Sebastian.

    I agree with you, in principle, after reading your post – decentralization at the local level with regard to food, energy, and political decision-making is not at odds with a new more decentralized confederated approach at a larger state, provincial and regional level. My only point is that we need much more support for relocalization and secession at the local level before we are ready to take the next steps towards a larger conversation…

    I also sense some frustration, on your part, with the recent Middlebury Institute conference in Manchester, New Hampshire. Your questions here are best directed, of course, to the planners of that event – Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute and others.

    I would suggest that our energies might better be served, here in the northeast, by beginning to organize larger events to explore common ground between northern New England states and the Canadian maritime provinces and Quebec.

    And I hope there is more action on this front in the months ahead.

    Vermont libre!

    Rob

  4. Given the extremely fast pace of events, the train will have long left the station by next November. If there is to be a successful North American Secessionist Congress, we may need to think of setting up an organizational meeting in the spring.

    Harold

  5. Rob:

    Re “My only point is that we need much more support for relocalization and secession at the local level before we are ready to take the next steps towards a larger conversation.” Agreed somewhat. In order for the NASM to “push” the notion of secession towards the public for perception, acknowledgement and eventual endorsement, i.e. the “pull”, I would argue that the medium/tool of a Congress would go a long way to accomplish the former. The two work hand-in-hand. The Novacadia Alliance, for one, could certainly use the voice of a recognized, legitimate and corporate representative body to lend credence to efforts being made at the grass-roots level. Take the example of the federal Bloc Quebecois in Canada (not to be mistaken for the provincial Parti Quebecois). For the last 15 years it has carried the province during federal elections. The party’s primary purpose is to defend and promote Quebec independence at the federal Parliamentary table while the actual nuts ‘n bolts of Quebec secessionist policy are overseen by the Parti Quebecois.

    Re the role of The Middlebury Institute, as per my original post last week on this topic, NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep At-The-Wheel, the problem is systemic and structural in nature. No one is denying that the MI is an invaluable source and clearing house for secessionist information, nor the spark it has lit for initiating secessionist dialogue. These responsibilities would seem to fall under its stated mandate of “the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination.” However, the convention Declarations are political in nature and scope and exceed the MI’s academic mandate. It purports to speak on behalf of the secessionist movement, but does so as a non-elected and non-endorsed body by that movement. Again, IMO, it is simply a matter of addressing the movement’s evolution, its nascent political maturity, and corresponding responsibilities. That ownership of political Declarations as have been issued should fall to a democratically-endorsed body such as a North American Secessionist Congress is, IMO, a no-brainer. The past three year’s conduct merely strengthens the case. It was the best that could be done at the time. We enter a new stage of political responsibilities.

    Re “I would suggest that our energies might better be served, here in the northeast, by beginning to organize larger events to explore common ground between northern New England states and the Canadian maritime provinces and Quebec.” It is my understanding that preliminary discussions have gotten under way towards a tentative meeting in the spring to address such concerns. (BTW, “northeast” is an American perception, not a North American perception. =;-D)

  6. Harold:

    Re “If there is to be a successful North American Secessionist Congress, we may need to think of setting up an organizational meeting in the spring.” Although I agree with your sentiment about events outpacing the organizational structure of the secessionist movement, the timeline and logistics for pulling together such a meeting would likely turn out to be a nightmare. However, to clarify, are you thinking in terms of an “organizational meeting” towards establishing an NASC, or are you thinking of an acutal inaugural meeting of an NASC? What did you have in mind re location, actual month, etc?

  7. I was originally thinking of the actual meeting being in April; however, upon reflection, I agree that three months is too little time to organize a large-scale meeting. I do think that we could set up a steering committee to develop the idea further.

    Discussions preliminary to that meeting could be conferenced over the Internet. Perhaps the steering committee could consist of members of such secessionist organizations that are likely to embrace a practical approach to moving forward (about 10 people, I imagine).

    Harold


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s