If the nationalists get their way, this November might be the last time Texans vote for a US president.
On Wednesday, the Platform Committee of the Texas Republican Party voted to put a Texas independence resolution up for a vote at this week’s GOP convention, according to a press release from the pro-secession Texas Nationalist Movement. The resolution calls for allowing voters to decide whether the Lone Star State should become an independent nation.
Texas was, in fact, its own country for nine years before joining the United States in 1845, and while the idea of returning to independence has never been taken seriously by most people, it remains popular as a romantic notion and marketing hook. Lone Star beer is the “national beer of Texas.” Texas Monthly is the “national magazine of Texas.” In a 2009 rally, then-Gov. Rick Perry hinted that the state could secede if “Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” He later backed off the idea. (Representatives of the state GOP and Texas Nationalist Movement could not be reached for comment.)
The Texas Nationalist Movement, once considered a quixotic fringe group, has added hundreds of members in the years since the election of Barack Obama. According to the Houston Chronicle‘s Dylan Baddour, at least 10 county GOP chapters are coming to the convention supporting independence resolutions. But this will be the first time in the state’s 171-year history that they will actually vote on one. It’s very unlikely to win. Then again, that’s what people said about Donald Trump.
* * *
As we detailed previously, via SHTFPlan.com’s Mac Slavo, secession, a formal declaration of independence, is by tradition the right of every Texan and American, and the Fed has doubtlessly crossed the line too many times to count. Fed up Americans are looking for ways to voice their anger, and Texans have a notoriously short fuse, a history of independence and tendencies to secede. But the powers that be may have also fueled a trap on sovereignty. What is shirked at the federal level may be accepted at the international level.
The bankers and social engineers are practiced at ruling by divide and conquer to avoid personally confronting pitchforks and angry townspeople. There is a plan underway, which has already been exposed, known as the North American Union. Sponsored by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the agenda is creating a globalized world that will use immigration to upend politics, shift demographics, supply corporate labor and fracture society.
Like NAFTA before it, the plan will destroy jobs and displace millions of workers, creating new waves of migration across the border. Further integration will restructure shipping, energy and transportation, all while building a scapegoat for the engineered economic collapse that will rile up the masses.
Like a doctor setting a fracture, the underwriters of the North American plan to actually break up regions of America to ‘enhance’ the management and control of society at many levels. According to author Jerome Corsi:
Understanding the plan to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada, says Corsi, is “the only context in which the current immigration travesty makes sense – and it must be stopped.” This aim to create a North American Union between the United States, Mexico and Canada is the real reason behind “comprehensive immigration reform.”
“A North American Union would not just be the end of America as we know it,” claims Corsi, “but the beginning of an EU-like nightmare – a bureaucratic coup d’etat foisted upon millions of Americans without their knowledge or consent.”
Thus, the big banks and power brokers are interested in Texas secession, or at least could exploit it easily:
How might secession transition from a fringe idea to a country-ender? In my conversations with economists, political scientists, and futurists, three broad themes came up that I found the most persuasive: economic collapse, the rise of localism, and North American reshuffling.
Let’s say there’s an American revolution—who leaves first? Once the feds “start imposing just huge taxes,” [Peter] Schiff says, the states that have to pay more in than they’re getting back out will pull their stars off the flag. Schiff lists Texas and California as potential pull-out candidates, whereas “Florida probably wants to stay because of all the Social Security money.” […]
North America’s borders have remained pretty much static for the last century… But this stability shouldn’t imply that our dividing lines make sense. In 1981’s Nine Nations of North America, Joel Garreau argued that the continent’s borders don’t reflect how we live. Garreau’s nine nations map—which highlighted regions where people share common values, culture, and natural resources—wasn’t intended to be predictive of a future breakup [Ed. Note: yet could be spot on].
Take away the artificial borders and we’re all just North Americans… If America ends, so will Canada and Mexico. And if Canada or Mexico goes down the tubes, we won’t be long for this continent either. (Source)
Taken the wrong way by the media, secession and ‘fightin’ talk’ about immigration allow the system to play off the sentiment of the locales and provide friction to open up action. This strategy creates new problems, and give new agency powers to those who could offer to provide solutions. These are new realms for experts to manage, and corporations to service. Remember that calls to secession have been led by bought out “yee haw” politicians like Rick Perry. The gun toting standoff rhetoric has been largely manufactured by scripted suits funded by lobbyists.
Nonetheless, a breaking point is bound to come somewhere, at sometime. As one commenter put it:
“Most Texans do not want to break away from the United States. Most Texans consider themselves Americans. But if ever being American means sacrificing our liberties, we will just prefer to be Texans.”
* * *