Talking about geopolitical coherence for a country that has forgotten all the strategic agreements of understanding with Jamahiriya’s Libya seems excessive to me. Italy urges to be able to identify its own strategic paradigm, and possibly place it in the changing world. Our previous government stood out for its excellent close relations with Russia, with the former Soviet bloc countries like Belarus, with Turkey, with North Africa (before the illegitimate aggression of Libya by NATO ), with China… Now we have instead a technical government imposed on us by the Europeanist line, composed from person who worked for NATO, finance and multinationals. Our own prime minister Mario Monti has been called “the man of Goldman Sachs”. It is clear that these conditions do not grant the formulation of a coherent own geopolitical line. With regard to the Padanian independentism, it had its political representation in “Lega Nord”, a party that was in government with the previous executive. As its first instances were to be ascribed to secessionism, it now proposing a less improbable federalism. However from the resignation of former premier Silvio Berlusconi the popularity of “Lega Nord” is declining, and in these days were consumed a series of scandals (whose timing might seem “artificial”) that have seen the collapse of its credibility. As regards the phenomenon known as "neo-borbonic" (but you can say the same about "neo-Habsburg"... ), this is not inserted in the political scene at all, but results from a fair recovery of regional cultural identity and from a more honest confrontation with the flaws of the process of unification of the nation, founded on liberal, capitalist and anti-popular ideological basis (in this regards the opinion of Antonio Gramsci about the “Southern question” are illuminating). We have examined the subject in some of our seminars, analyzing the relationship between the Italian Reunification and geopolitics, emphasizing the Anglo-Saxon interference in the politics of Piedmont, and the influence it exerted on ideological groups that have played a key role in the unification process, contextualizing the event in the global scenario that the British Empire was shaping according to its business interests, since the Crimean War (see "The Two Sicilies and the Crimean War” by Angelo D'Ambra, Nomos III and Nomos IV). Altough each independentist proposal found to be inadequate to the reality of facts and is definitely outdated compared to the necessity of creation of large strategic poles functional to the transition to multipolarism, we can not but recognize that local sovereignties were the first to be swallowed by the centripetal force of the mondialist process, which saw in the British trade policy the precursor of the next U.S. unipolarism. The Napoleonic Jacobinism on the one hand, and every liberal ideological derivative the other have played a prominent role in this process, now on behalf of France, now on behalf of England – in each case on behalf of an illuminist and ideological worldview, based on the dogmas of the Rule of law, of the economics divorced from organic or state constraints, of the need to create a global supranational organism. Anyway any recovery of the local culture is desired, although it must always be framed in a correct view of international politics, in a total alterglobalist proposal and, last but not least, in a healthy clarity of analysis to compare it objectively with reality , a feature that in most cases in these circles is missing.