Les premi\u00e8res phrases du texte de Wayne Madsen de Strategic-Culture.org <\/em>du 10 juillet 2017<\/a> sont contestables du point de vue de la narrative<\/em> constitutionnelle ; pour autant, elles r\u00e9sument admirablement la v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation<\/a> du devenir catastrophique de la forme g\u00e9opolitique des États-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique, de leur situation dans le concert mondial, de la perception de leur pr\u00e9tendue exceptionnalit\u00e9 dans la psychologie collective. Madsen dit en gros, selon notre interpr\u00e9tation qui est volontairement brutale, voire cynique (la force de la Guerre Civile [Guerre de S\u00e9cession] imposant le droit constitutionnel, quelle inversion cruelle !) : \u00ab\u00a0Interrogez la plupart des experts de la Constitution et ils vous diront que la s\u00e9cession est interdite par la Constitution, comme la Guerre Civile en a impos\u00e9 le principe… Mais tous les principes constitutionnels ne peuvent et ne pourront rien contre une dissolution des USA du fait de l’\u00e9volution en cours acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9 des États par rapport au centre<\/strong>…\u00a0\u00bb Cette chose se nomme \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9volution<\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Madsen fait une analyse serr\u00e9e de toutes les initiatives, r\u00e9unions, associations informelles que les États de l’Union ont mis en place et d\u00e9veloppent depuis les troubles de 2016-2017, depuis l’\u00e9lection de Trump et son inauguration. Il s’agit d’une v\u00e9ritable insurrection-douce (-une \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9volution-douce<\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0, pour utiliser le terme ad\u00e9quat dont use Madsen), d’une immense dynamique de refus d’ob\u00e9issance et d’indiff\u00e9rence \u00e0 l’autorit\u00e9 du \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb qui se d\u00e9veloppe \u00e0 la vitesse d’un incendie de for\u00eat attis\u00e9 par un vent violent sur une nature transform\u00e9e par la s\u00e9cheresse… Bien, la s\u00e9cession n’est pas constitutionnelle (!), mais quelle importance<\/strong>, alors qu’il y a la d\u00e9volution de toutes les fa\u00e7ons, sous la forme d’une d\u00e9construction selon la si-fameuse et tant-acclam\u00e9e (aux USA) French Theory<\/em>, c’est-\u00e0-dire notre dd&e <\/em>(d\u00e9structuration-dissolution-entropisation) ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9 depuis plusieurs mois nombre d’initiatives allant dans le sens, car nous consid\u00e9rons depuis longtemps que la question de l’union des USA, de sa coh\u00e9sion, de son \u00ab\u00a0int\u00e9gration\u00a0\u00bb constitue le probl\u00e8me central, la cœur de la Grande Crise d’effondrement du Syst\u00e8me, – d’ailleurs avec une tr\u00e8s puissante connotation psychologique aliment\u00e9e par la puissance du syst\u00e8me de la communication<\/strong>. L’int\u00e9r\u00eat du texte de Madsen est bien de nous informer de l’ampleur, de la diversit\u00e9, de la force de ces divers mouvements, jusqu’\u00e0 la plus quantitativement \u00e9poustouflante regroupant 44 États qui refusent de communiquer des informations sur l’identification des votants sur leurs territoires, comme il a \u00e9t\u00e9 demand\u00e9 aux États par l’administration Trump.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les refus des États par rapport aux exigences du centre, de Washington D.C., sont regroup\u00e9s selon des logiques et des g\u00e9ographies tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rentes selon les causes consid\u00e9r\u00e9es. On observera que ces causes embrassent de tr\u00e8s nombreux domaines, allant du refus du rejet de l’Accord de Paris sur l’environnement \u00e0 la l\u00e9galisation de la marijuana, \u00e0 l’accueil des migrants, au maintien de l’accord de l’administration Obama avec Cuba que l’administration Trump a annul\u00e9, \u00e0 des accords de libre-\u00e9change ou abandons d’accords de libre-\u00e9change contredisant la politique de Washington D.C.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nous avons termin\u00e9 cette \u00e9num\u00e9ration qui n’est en rien ni compl\u00e8te ni restrictive par le point potentiellement le plus explosif qu’est celui du libre-\u00e9change, avec les États de la c\u00f4te Ouest et Hawaii refusant de suivre l’abandon du trait\u00e9 transpacifique par Washington D.C., ou n\u00e9gociant directement des accords de libre-\u00e9change avec la Chine par exemple. Madsen va jusqu’\u00e0 observer que cette \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9bellion\u00a0\u00bb des États de la c\u00f4te Ouest (notamment Californie, Oregon, Washington), accompagn\u00e9s de l’État de Hawaii, aboutit « \u00e0 une sorte de sous-alliance des <\/em><\/strong>Pacific States of America \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur des États-Unis<\/em> »<\/strong>. Madsen admet qu’il s’agit de loin le point le plus sensible qui peut aboutir \u00e0 un affrontement entre les États et le \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb dans la mesure où le conflit touche directement la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re dans son sens le plus large (s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, commerce, etc.)… Mais nous savons d\u00e9j\u00e0 que nombre de ces États ont d\u00e9sormais une repr\u00e9sentation officielle, en tant que tels, dans des puissances \u00e9trang\u00e8res, comme la Californie<\/a> \u00e0 P\u00e9kin<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n La situation est extr\u00eamement propice \u00e0 cette dynamique, pour plusieurs raisons. Il y a la polarisation extraordinaire qui partage des USA \u00e0 l’occasion de ces pr\u00e9sidentielles, et qui se retrouve dans la situation de nombre d’États, dans un sens ou l’autre. De ce point de vue, on ne peut dire qu’il existe des \u00ab\u00a0f\u00e9d\u00e9ralistes\u00a0\u00bb contre des \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9volutionnistes\u00a0\u00bb car les deux extr\u00eames qui s’affrontent ont, chacun de leur c\u00f4t\u00e9, autant de griefs et de reproches \u00e0 adresser au \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>, que ce soit \u00e0 Trump et aux forces qu’il regroupe pr\u00e9tendument de la part des progressistes-soci\u00e9taux, que ce soit au Deep State<\/em> et \u00e0 son activisme anti-Trump de la part des conservateurs-populistes. Seuls quelques groupes tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment identifi\u00e9s sont anti-f\u00e9d\u00e9ralistes, comme les libertariens et les n\u00e9o-s\u00e9cessionnistes, mais ils se fondent dans les deux grandes tendances d\u00e9crites d’autant que la dynamique en cours leur convient parfaitement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n La forme tr\u00e8s particuli\u00e8re de l’administration Trump, son d\u00e9sordre, son absence de coordination, autant que la personnalit\u00e9 de Trump et sa fa\u00e7on de \u00ab\u00a0gouverner\u00a0\u00bb sont \u00e9galement tr\u00e8s favorables au mouvement de d\u00e9volution. Trump lui-m\u00eame n’a jamais manifest\u00e9 de position tr\u00e8s marqu\u00e9e sur la question ; il serait plut\u00f4t tent\u00e9 de raisonner en businessman<\/em>, et si la structure actuelle des USA n’est pas bonne pour le business<\/em>, tant pis pour elle… L’administration Trump agit \u00e0 l’image de son pr\u00e9sident : des initiatives imp\u00e9ratives, qui peuvent prendre la forme d’un quasi-autoritarisme, et qui s’exercerait par cons\u00e9quent d’une mani\u00e8re brutale contre les États ; et, tr\u00e8s souvent, ces initiatives brutales qui ne sont en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral suivies d’aucun effet marquant ou bien d’un d\u00e9sordre inefficace. On a donc le choc initial de l’autoritarisme centralisateur avec une quasi-absence de moyens de coercition pour faire appliquer les ordres et consignes ; on \u00e9veille donc, on suscite, on exacerbe l’hostilit\u00e9 contre le \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb sans que ce \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb ait le moyen de faire respecter cette autorit\u00e9 ainsi proclam\u00e9e<\/strong>. On voit difficilement une situation plus propice \u00e0 l’acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration du d\u00e9volutionnisme et du d\u00e9constructionnisme en cours.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Quant \u00e0 l’hypoth\u00e8se d’une pr\u00e9sidence Trump ne durant qu’un mandat ou interrompue par une crise majeure (destitution), avec l’arriv\u00e9e d’un nouveau pr\u00e9sident qui serait un vrai f\u00e9d\u00e9raliste et voudrait r\u00e9tablir l’autorit\u00e9 du \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb, nous estimons que le processus de \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9volution-douce\u00a0\u00bb est d\u00e9j\u00e0 all\u00e9 si loin, et aura encore \u00e9t\u00e9 plus loin, qu’on verrait surgir des situations de v\u00e9ritables confrontations entre les États d\u00e9volutionnaires et le \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb pouvant aller jusqu’\u00e0 des affrontements<\/strong>, avec des effets catastrophiques sur les capacit\u00e9s f\u00e9d\u00e9rales et les grands domaines de la politique (politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re, de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, etc.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Encore \u00e9voque-t-on tout cela d’une mani\u00e8re th\u00e9orique, sans tenir compte de l’in\u00e9vitable d\u00e9sordre que, dans les circonstances de tension en aggravation constante, susciteraient un changement de pr\u00e9sidence, et encore plus une destitution<\/strong>. Encore (suite) ne prend-on pas en compte l’absence de signaux publics devant ces perspectives, \u00e0 cause du silence-censure quasi-complet que la presseSyst\u00e8me observe \u00e0 propos de cette dynamique qui est une atteinte insupportable pour les zombies-Syst\u00e8me \u00e0 la sacralit\u00e9 des États-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique, de l’American Dream<\/em> et le reste. Bref, dans tous ces cas, on passe de l’hypoth\u00e8se \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9volution-douce\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 celle de v\u00e9ritables situations de guerre civile<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Pour notre part, nous avons suivi depuis longtemps et avec attention tous les signes de fracturation des USA, de cette fameuse d\u00e9volution-d\u00e9construction, dont nous jugeons qu’elle doit jouer un r\u00f4le absolument fondamental pour pr\u00e9cipiter la crise du Syst\u00e8me vers son terme<\/strong>. On peut lire de nombreux textes sur ce sujet, comme celui du 14 octobre 2009, où est mis en \u00e9vidence le choc psychologique terrifiant que constituerait une destruction des États-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique comme nous les connaissons, et par cons\u00e9quent de l’American Dream <\/em>qui est le principal support onirique et symbolique de la chose…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « L’un des fondements est psychologique, avec le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de fascination – \u00e0 nouveau ce mot – pour l’attraction exerc\u00e9e sur les esprits par le \u00ab\u00a0mod\u00e8le am\u00e9ricaniste\u00a0\u00bb, qui est en fait la repr\u00e9sentation \u00e0 la fois symbolique et onirique de la modernit\u00e9. C’est cela qui est r\u00e9sum\u00e9 sous l’expression populaire mais tr\u00e8s substantiv\u00e9e de American Dream<\/em>. […] La fin de l’American Dream, qui interviendrait avec un processus de parcellisation de l’Am\u00e9rique, constituerait un facteur d\u00e9cisif pour d\u00e9bloquer notre perception, \u00e0 la fois des conditions de la crise, de la gravit\u00e9 ontologique de la crise et de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de tenter de chercher une autre voie pour la civilisation – ou, plus radicalement, une autre civilisation<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n _____________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ask most scholars on the U.S. Constitution and they will tell you that the Constitution prohibits American states from seceding. They will point out that the U.S. Civil War settled the issue of secession in fact, as well as in theory. But all the constitutional principles considered does not prevent the United States from devolving from the political center’s authority in Washington, DC to the state and even large metropolitan levels.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Under Donald Trump’s strongman policies, the United States is experiencing the same rapid decentralization that has seen other federations split apart in rapid fashion. Granted, the United States does not have the same underlying causes of ethnicity, language, and religion that helped propel the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, but the unilateral actions of the federal government are resulting in a steady movement by the American states away from the center in Washington, DC. Trump and his advisers, who rode the slogan of «states’ rights» into the White House, have shown a tendency toward disregarding the authority of the states and their representation in Washington, as embodied by the Congress, in favor of a strong unitary executive. The movement of the states toward more independence against the wishes of the center, as well as the Trump administration’s attempt to supersede the interests of the states is fraught with dangerous possibilities.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Federal forms of government are only successful when there is continual dialogue between the national and sub-national governments. When that dialogue is replaced by unilateral dictates from the center, the sub-national entities show their opposition by starting to ignore the national government. It was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s unpopular poll tax in the 1980s that helped lead to the devolution of power from London to newly-formed regional governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The devolution of powers to Scotland helped lead the path to the political dominance of the Scottish National Party and a referendum on Scottish independence. The atrophy of successive Belgian governments led directly to a federalized Belgium where substantial powers were devolved to Dutch-speaking Flanders, French-speaking Wallonia, and the Brussels-Capital Region, each with their own parliaments and governments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n While it is illegal for American states to secede, as witnessed by the military defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, other forms of sub-national autonomy may be the ultimate outcome of the Trump administration’s practical disregard for the federalism as embodied by the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The drive toward more state autonomy from Washington is influenced by a number of policies enacted by the Trump administration, including those dealing with the environment, drug usage, health care, personally-identifiable data, relations with Cuba, immigration policy, and foreign trade. Although there are other issues that have driven wedges between the Trump administration and its Republican boosters in Congress, the aforementioned «big seven» are the current catalysts that have many states opting to seek their own political paths, without interference from Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord resulted in the creation of the «United States Climate Alliance», a group of states that remain committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Accord, regardless of Washington’s wishes. The first three states to declare independence from Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency’s policies were California, Washington, and New York. Connecticut soon followed. The Republican governors of Massachusetts and Vermont also joined the alliance, putting an end to criticism that the U.S. Climate Alliance was a Democratic Party contrivance. These states were followed by Rhode Island, Oregon, Hawaii, Virginia, Minnesota, and Delaware. Other states that remain committed to supporting the Paris Accord but have not formally joined the U.S. Climate Alliance are Colorado, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Maine. The District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which are not states, also adhered to the Paris Accord.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Climate Alliance has served as a backdrop to some governors conducting bilateral talks with leaders of foreign governments on not only the environment but also immigration. Washington Governor Jay Inslee met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Seattle and they jointly backed the Paris Accord. Inslee also discussed Mexican immigrants in his state in talks with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City. California Governor Jerry Brown flew to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. There, the two leaders reiterated their support for the Paris Accord and discussed bilateral economic interests. These included China-California trade issues during a time in which Trump is threatening to unleash a global trade war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n When it comes to thumbing noses at Washington and the Trump administration, the Pacific Coast states – which are becoming a sort of Pacific States of America sub-alliance within the United States – are leading the pack.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Washington, Oregon, and California have rejected threats by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to begin enforcing federal marijuana laws. The three states have legalized marijuana for both medical and recreational uses. These states were recently joined by Nevada. As Washington and Colorado, the latter also legalizing pot for medical and recreational use, have discovered, the tax revenue brought into state coffers by the marijuana economy have helped bail them out of financial destitution. Trump officials have not offered up any federal offsets for the loss of marijuana revenue, so the states have basically told Trump, Sessions, and the Drug Enforcement Administration to mind their own business when it comes to enforcement of federal drug laws within their states. These multi-use marijuana states are joined by Alaska, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Another group of states have declared their support for continued Medicaid expansion benefits under the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) and have rejected the sweeping cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, and veteran’s health benefits being made by congressional Republicans and members of the Trump administration. Again, among the states instituting expanded Medicaid to cover low-wage earners in their states are the three core anti-Trump Pacific states of California, Oregon, and Washington, joined by Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. Other Medicaid expansion states are Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A pattern of early devolution is developing in the United States. This is also being seen in other policy areas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n An overwhelming 44 states have rejected a request for personally-identifiable voter registration data by Trump’s politically-motivated President’s Commission on Election Integrity, also known as the «Kobach Commission», named after the vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. The commission is a ruse designed to conduct mass suppression of voting rights in the spirit of the old Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a state-funded body entrusted by Mississippi’s governor to suppress civil rights of African-Americans in the state. In a tweet, Trump asked, «what are they [the states] trying to hide». The simple answer is that they are not hiding anything but protecting personal data pursuant to state statutes. It is shocking that Trump does not understand the basic federal and state laws regarding the privacy of data.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla laid down the gauntlet to the Kobach Commission in declaring, «I will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally». Mississippi’s Republican Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann told Kobach’s commission to «go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mississippi is a great state to launch from».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trump’s decision to roll back economic and travel agreements with Cuba established by the Obama administration has also set off a rebellion among states that see greater trade and travel opportunities with Cuba as helping their own states.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trump’s decision was met with defiance by Minnesota. That state’s Democratic Lieutenant Governor led a bipartisan trade delegation to Cuba that declared its support for the Obama-led detente between the United States and Cuba. Louisiana Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards and the state’s Agricultural Commissioner Mike Strain, a Republican, declared that Trump’s sanctions on Cuba will not affect Louisiana’s growing agricultural trade with the island nation. They intend to increase trade with Cuba and not diminish it, regardless of Trump’s actions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The other issue that has spurred states to challenge the authority of Trump is immigration. The first aspect is Trump’s travel ban affecting the issuance of standard and special refugee visas to individuals from six designated Muslim countries: Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. Iraq was later dropped from the list. Among the states that filed federal suits against implementation of the federal government we find two of the rebellious Pacific states – Washington and Oregon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The second aspect of Trump’s immigration policy is the Department of Homeland Security’s rounding up of undocumented migrants throughout the United States and their deportation to their countries of origin. California is about to become a «sanctuary state», which means it will refuse to assist federal law enforcement in the detention of illegal migrants.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Foreign trade may be the catalyst that drives some states away from the federal government in a constitutional showdown. Multicultural Hawaii, which is showing a desire to separate itself completely from Trump’s policies and has an active Native Hawaiian independence movement to help spur it on, is the only state to sue the administration over the constitutionality of Trump’s visa ban. Hawaii sees itself as America’s gateway to the Pacific and Asia and freedom of travel is key to that view. Hawaii will not participate willingly in a Trump trade war as attested to by the state’s very active trade offices in Beijing and Taipei.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Other states, particularly the Pacific rebels, are not likely to adopt trade war policies by the Trump administration. The U.S. Constitution carves out foreign trade as a responsibility of the federal government and it will be trade issues that will see the first rifts between Washington, DC and the states. California has a major trade office in Beijing. Washington state and Oregon maintain trade offices in Shanghai. Some state trade representatives are afforded the same diplomatic courtesies by their host nations as diplomatic consuls. The states will not give up their foreign trade opportunities to satisfy the whims of a trade megalomaniac like Trump.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The decentralization forces now at play in the United States, spurred by the troubling power-grabbing moves by the Trump administration, are noteworthy for being largely bipartisan, largely trans-continental – except for a few regressive southern states and a few states in the prairies and mountain west – and showing no signs of abatement. If this is the situation six months into the Trump administration, political scientists are wondering if there will even be a «United» States at the end of Trump’s term in office, particularly if that comes in January 2025.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n La d\u00e9construction de l’Union Les premi\u00e8res phrases du texte de Wayne Madsen de Strategic-Culture.org du 10 juillet 2017 sont contestables du point de vue de la narrative constitutionnelle ; pour autant, elles r\u00e9sument admirablement la v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation du devenir catastrophique de la forme g\u00e9opolitique des États-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique, de leur situation dans le concert mondial, de la… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[2942,2880,6398,10053,2645,3557,4811,4014,13175,2949,13045,2639,13174,4400],"class_list":["post-77364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-californie","tag-civile","tag-devolution","tag-federalistes","tag-guerre","tag-libre-echange","tag-madsen","tag-of","tag-pacific","tag-secession","tag-states","tag-trump","tag-united","tag-wayne"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
The Rapid Devolution of the United States<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Wayne Madsen<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"