Today, I am offering a re-post of "The Breakup of Pathological Spaces". I want to add a couple of clarifying comments. Some might read this post and think immediately of how the European Union is currently under attack from those who want to secede from that union. Many of the "secessionists" in this case are fascist ultra-nationalists motivated by a strong racial pride and a strong desire to exclude refugees who are entering European nations from Mideast nations which the EU has helped to destroy. Hence their love for border guards, walls and fences. While I agree with them that the EU as currently constituted should die, I question their ultimate motivations. They should be careful, lest they succeed in breaking free from one pathological space by creating other, smaller pathological spaces, which is what they would turn their countries into by pushing their agenda.
In thinking of a "healthy" breakup, I am reminded of "Third World" countries which have managed to escape from the larger pathological space created by the earth's dominant nations. I think of Cuba under Fidel Castro, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez (while he was still alive), and Bolivia under Evo Morales. These leaders have all had the same goal: namely, to return sovereignty and self-determination to their own people, and to end the exploitation of their people by Europe and the Anglo-American empire. Each of these countries has had varying degrees of success in achieving that goal, and each of these countries had to pay a price for setting that goal for themselves. But each of these countries is still standing in some sense as sovereign nations. Their citizens have not been turned into refugees. Over the last decade, they have been joined by Fiji. (See this also. The "undemocratic" rulers of Fiji have an approval rating of at least 66 percent, due in part to their policies to help the poor and to reduce ethnic conflict. How many people have to like you before you stop being "undemocratic"?)
To be sure, in the West, there is a much more negative view of how well these nations are doing, and how well their leaders have done for them. The negative Western view is promulgated by Western media and Western "journalists". But is it not obvious by now that most of these "journalists" are liars? (See this also.)