HCR 6 Disappears and Igor Panarin Reappears

In a stunning vote in the New Hampshire House to-day, the States’ Rights Bill HCR 6, was defeated by a vote of 216-150. The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers declared that the House Members voted “in violation of their oath of office.”

This one is not over by a long shot. Rep. Dan Itse and his co-sponsors of HCR 6 are to be congratulated…and saluted. Has the House vote inadvertently handed Rep. Itse the State’s Governorship during the next gubernatorials? I guess we all get to stay tuned on that one.

Thanks go out to Harold Thomas at The Ohio Republic, not only for being so on top of this story, but also for the very important work he is doing in the States’ Right community, especially rounding up support for Ohio’s bid.

On another note to-day, Igor Panarin, the Russian analyst who is becoming somewhat of a secessionist poster boy, was back in the news, this time via an AP story that was picked up by both MSNBC and Fox News, Russian analyst: U.S. will collapse next year. Canada’s National Newswatch linked to the Fox article.

Mr. Panarin and his hypothesis for U.S. implosion first broke last November and then the story was picked up by the WSJ on December 29. What is popping my antennae is the “legs” that the story is being given by the corporate media. First the WSJ and now MSNBC. Makes one wonder, yes?

As a commenter pointed out over at ClubOrlov, the word “collapse” is more and more creeping into the mainstream media, e.g. The collapse of manufacturing in The Economist…along with the notion of Peak Oil.

Advertisements

NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-The-Wheel

It took just about a month for the mainstream media to catch up to a story on the disintegration of the United States. The story, by Russian Professor Igor Panarin, first broke on November 25, 2008 . I refer, of course, to the WSJ article which ran on December 29: As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

The WSJ article is getting a lot of play in the blogosphere. The original Izvestia story, as was covered by Global Futures, was touched on with a post in this blog and can be jumped to here (link to the original Global Futures article inclusive).

The motives for such an esteemed gatekeeper as the WSJ to run with this story is left to individual imaginations. It is safe to say that the determination of motive will vary with the degree of one’s political smarts and where one sits within the conspiracy cosmos, i.e. alternative interpretation of “the news.” The acknowledged role of the corporate media within such “conspiracy cosmos” goes without saying.

More to the point, the issue for the NAmerican secessionist movement (NASM) around this story is not if Professor Panarin is a nut job or to the degree, if any, that his theories on the break-up of the United States serve Russian propaganda purposes. The issue for the NASM here is the degree to which it has been caught with its pants down. By all rights, a representative body of the NASM should have been all over this story and the wide public attention it received like a dirty shirt; it should have been collecting PR premiums hand-over-fist via the positioning of the NASM in the public psyche.

Unfortunately, the NASM is asleep-at-the-wheel because it is currently structured to be asleep-at-the-wheel, i.e. there is no structure; there is no representative body. Within a context of political organization, the movement is straddled and limited by an uncoordinated gaggle of state/provincial and regional secessionist initiatives ranging from the politically astute and professional (Quebec, Vermont, The South, Texas, Alaska), to fledgling start-ups, to the ongoing competition amongst Cascadian organizations as to who can design the prettiest web site.

The Middlebury Institute, widely recognized as being the clearing house for secessionist news and information, makes no mention of the Panarin story. The American Secession Project is likewise out of the loop, which stands to reason as it seems that activity there has been dormant since 2007.

Perhaps the current state of the NASM is no better reflected than with the dismal flop of the recent Third North American Secessionist Convention.

After the major international media breakthroughs accomplished at the Second NAmerican Secessionist Convention held in Chattanooga, TN in 2007, the NASM took a step backwards with the Third NAmerican Secessionist Convention held this past November in Manchester, NH. For the media the convention was a non-event, possibly due to a combination of Obamamania, lack of interest (choreographed media boycotting of the convention possibly inclusive), and/or poorly executed press releases. Based on the haphazard organization, a majority no-show of secessionist organizations, lack of parliamentary procedure and decorum, and the tired parading of the usual secessionist “assets”  and ringers, one convention delegate opined that maybe it was just as well that the media were a no-show.

Attempts to pass the buck and tag individual scapegoats in the convention’s aftermath accomplish nothing, largely because such efforts occur in the vacuum of non-organization and non-accountability. A reasonable, objective and legitimate executive de-brief is not possible.

In all fairness, we all do best those things we do best within the context of the most precious non-renewable resource there is: time. The evolution of any social initiative always outgrows the limited resources and tightly-held agenda of the original pioneers; academic and visionary breakthroughs seldom make the transition to hardcore political organizing. If the organizational ball was dropped due to a lack of managerial skill sets and the non-option to delegate properly, then how is it possible to cast individual blame? It is, of course, not possible. It is an organizational problem, not the shortcomings of any one individual or even clique of individuals.

If, indeed, the NASM has in its collective mind the intent to harness a revolution of perception and consequent action amongst its autonomous, regional satellites for the full benefit of a Post-Peak Oil public, then the current organizational non-structure and general invisibility of the NASM will not suffice.

It is put forward for strong and serious consideration that the NASM must evolve in tandem with the historical condition. If not, then we may as well all grab our marbles and go home. To work towards the bankrupt political status of Green Party lobbying is not an option. Actually, as a responsible political force and voice, the NASM should be ahead of the unfolding condition; it should be able to pre-empt the condition in order to most effectively ensure its political positioning. As is, the condition, e.g. the entry onto the Post-Peak Oil slope, financial and economic meltdown, imperial over-reach, NWO geopolitics, etc., is outpacing the isolated managerial and political capacities of the NASM in leaps and bounds.

The onus falls on NAmerican autonomous secessionist organizations to make the democratic, coordinated and organizational efforts to catch up to the condition in order to reap full public relations benefits, to position the NASM in the NAmerican political psyche. The garnering of support and call for the creation of an organizational, coordinating and legally incorporated and registered body such as a North American Secessionist Congress may be the route to go. The necessity to do so would seem to be obvious and crucial. The will to do so, unfortunately, is another thing altogether.

Russian Analyst Predicts Breakup of USA

Professor Igor Panarin, a leading Russian political analyst, has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts. If you don’t mind plodding through the computer-generated translation, you can view the original Izvestia article. Otherwise, Global Futures offers an overview.

Leaving the obvious propaganda aside, if nothing else this is one more analysis that supports the regional implosion and constituency determination of North America as opposed to the breaking away of individual states and provinces. It is a position that was presented at the recent North American Secessionist Convention: Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession.

Professor Panarin, of course, neatly side-steps the further fragmentation of Russia as an industrial nation state in a Post-Peak Oil world.