Today’s Brief, post-independence

Luhansk, another narrative bites the dust w/Larry Johnson

8
2596

In the above video brainstorming session between Johnson and self-made military intelligence experts Alex Christoforou and Alexander, Larry Johnson disproves my theory that there is no intelligent life at the CIA. The only one missing here is Gonzalo Lira who has been pointing out the obvious since the beginning. Russia has proved itself to be a military power beyond the comprehension of the doomed American zombies, who as of yesterday were still cluelessly waving their flags and celebrating American exceptionalism.

As Johnson confirms Russia went into Ukraine with one third the military force of Ukraine and has walked through the best NATO had without even breaking a sweat. America and Great Britain cannot defeat Russia in a war. All Russia needs from China is for them to stay neutral and we are witnessing the last days of the Anglo-American Empire. Good riddance.

We as citizens of those countries, the only real assets they ever did have, need to start thinking about how we will pick up the pieces. There are many of us who are still quite cognizant. Although the mainstream media, the true enemy of our peoples will not let us speak, and the internet is crawling with intelligence operatives from America, Great Britain and Israel we still do have a voice. Here in America its actually quite remarkable how many people have not fallen for the state sponsored chemical lobotomy euphemistically referred to as a vaccine.

There is a marked decline in cognitive abilities in anyone that has taken that shot and the more of them they get the less coherent they become. But seventy-four million is more than enough to take this country back by force of arms and that is what it’s going to take. As of now there are 120,000 military personnel who have refused it. There are even more combat veterans no longer on active duty that know what need be done here.

In America, we lost our way long ago from the original blueprint of a loosely knit alliance of autonomous states. Not that I believe voting in fixed elections is going to do us any good, but if you must vote the article below is the perfect blueprint for what you should be voting for:

Share

Jack Heart Esoteric Evolution is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Please Follow us on GabMindsTelegramRumbleGab TVGETTRTruth Social   

Reprinted with permission Mises Institute Ryan McMaken

Most commentary on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—which overturns Roe v. Wade—has focused on the decision’s effect on the legality of abortion in various states. That’s an important issue. It may be, however, that the Dobbs decision’s effect on political decentralization in the United States is a far bigger deal.

After all, the ruling isn’t so much about abortion as it is about the federal government’s role in abortion. State governments are free to make abortion 100 percent legal within their own borders. Some states have already done so. The court’s ruling limits only the federal government’s prerogatives over abortion law, and this has the potential to lead to many other limitations on federal power as well. In this way, Dobbs is a victory for those seeking to limit federal power.

The decentralization is all to the good, and there’s nothing novel about it. Historically, state laws in the US have varied broadly on a variety of topics from alcohol consumption to divorce. This was also true of abortion before Roe v. Wade.

Moreover, decentralizing abortion policy in this way actually works to defuse national conflict. This is becoming even more important as cultural divides in the United States are clearly accelerating and become more entrenched. Rather than fight with increasing alarm and aggression over who controls the federal government—and thus who imposes the winner’s preferences on everyone else—people in different states will have more choices in choosing whether to live under proabortion or antiabortion regimes. In other words, decentralization forces policymakers to behave as they should in a confederation of states: they must tolerate people doing things differently across state lines.  This will be essential in avoiding disaster, and laissez-faire liberals (i.e., “classical liberals”) have long supported decentralization as a key in avoiding dangerous political conflicts. Ludwig von Mises, for example, supported decentralization because, as he put it, it “is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil … wars.”

The Impulse to Use Federal Power to Force Policy on Everyone

Law has never been uniform across state lines in the United States, although this was not for a lack of trying on the part of the federal government. As the power of the federal government grew throughout the twentieth century, the central government repeatedly sought to make policy uniform and put it under the control of federal courts and regulatory agencies. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state and local matter only. Before the drug war, the federal government did not dictate to states what plants they should let their citizens consume. Before the Volstead Act, “dry” states and “wet” states had far different policies on alcohol sales. Some states had lenient divorce laws. Some did not. Some states allowed gambling. Even immigration was once the domain of state government. Although some federal law enforcement agents existed in the nineteenth century, “law and order” was overwhelmingly a state and local matter prior to the rise of agencies like the FBI.

The cumulative effect of making all these areas the prerogative of federal regulators, agents, and courts has been to convince many Americans that the United States government ought to federalize most areas of daily life. In the modern way of thinking, only less important or trivial matters are to be left up to the state and local governments. For many Americans, they learned to just think that it was abnormal for the state next door to have different gun policies or drug policies than one’s home state.

Drugs, Alcohol, and Guns

In the past decade, this impulse to intervene in neighboring states has been highlighted by the de facto end of nationwide marijuana prohibition in the United States. Beginning in 2012 with Colorado and Washington State, recreational marijuana use has become essentially legal in nearly two dozen US states. This means a resident of one state can travel to a neighboring state to consume a drug that is illegal in his or her home state. Some state governments have a hard time dealing with this. Politicians in antimarijuana states complained that their citizens had too much access to prohibited substances. Not surprisingly, attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in federal court in an attempt to force Colorado to reimpose marijuana prohibition on its citizens. Fortunately, these lawsuits—which if successful would have greatly expanded federal power over states—failed.

Alcohol prohibition grew out of the same desire to force some states’ preferences on all other states. In 1917, only twenty-seven states embraced statewide prohibition. It took a constitutional amendment to impose prohibition on all the rest.

Moreover, laws governing the purchase and carry of firearms vary broadly from state to state, with “constitutional carry” allowing permitless carry in some states. Some states allow for private gun sales without any background checks. Other states greatly restrict these activities. Naturally, policy makers who oppose the freedom to carry firearms have sought for many decades to impose uniform gun policy nationwide.

Federal Centralization Run Amok: The Fugitive Slave Acts 

The most notorious case of using the federal government to impose nationwide uniformity is likely the Fugitive Slave Acts (passed in 1793 and 1850). Contrary to the myth that slave owners hated a strong federal government and wanted only local control, slave drivers enthusiastically and repeatedly invoked the federal fugitive slave laws. This was done in order to force Northern governments to cooperate with Southern states in kidnapping runaway slaves and returning them to their “owners.” The Dred Scott decision extended federal protections of slavery even further, and the ruling allowed many slave owners to argue they could even take their slaves into nonslave states and territories, regardless of state and local laws prohibiting slavery.

Many abolitionists refused to acknowledge federal prerogatives and actively opposed federal agents who attempted to enforce federal laws extending slavery beyond the slave states. Some Northern governments explicitly refused to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Acts. So successful were these efforts to undermine federal law that South Carolina secessionists listed the failure of federal slave laws as a reason for secession in 1860. Slavery advocates were enraged by the idea that their neighbors in other states weren’t being forced to help prop up the slave system.

After Roe, States Are Quickly Decentralizing American Abortion Law

In all of these cases, the perceived “answer” offered by proponents of legal uniformity was to bring in the federal government to force people in state A to do the bidding of people in state B. Thanks to the overturning of Roe, however, many states are moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Some states have moved toward prohibiting abortion within their own borders. But proabortion states are also taking some key legal steps toward further decentralizing policy. Policy makers in Massachusetts have moved to protect the state’s citizens from extradition to antiabortion states for abortion-related crimes. The state’s governor also signed an executive order prohibiting the state’s agencies “from assisting another state’s investigation into a person or entity” for abortion-related activities. New York’s governor has signed legislation “that shields [abortion] providers and patients from civil liability” in abortion-related claims. The message here: “Those laws in antiabortion states have no power here.”

Centralization Breeds Conflict

This is the way the system was designed to work. People can choose to live in state A, where abortion is illegal. But should some of those people travel to state B to get an abortion, state B ought to be under no obligation to help state A enforce its laws either inside or outside the state. To demand anything more than this inevitably ends up involving the federal government to impose new obligations on every state. (This strategy of centralizing power should not be confused with trying to directly change laws within those states. It is, of course, a good thing to pressure governments to end unjust laws from within, but such efforts are totally different than calling in the federal government to end abortion by federal fiat.)

As we have seen with abortion, slavery, drugs, and guns, when the feds are involved, every national election ends up being a referendum on whatever issue is deemed so important that the federal government must impose one way of doing things on everyone. This only makes national politics even more nasty.

The end of Roe v. Wade may end up emphasizing the political and cultural divisions in America by forcing many Americans to recognize that the United States is not one place. It is many places. This is not a problem, however, if we relearn that rather than employ federal coercion to “solve” the world’s problems, it’s perhaps better to tolerate others doing things differently in other parts of the world. On the other hand, if Americans can’t shake the idea that the regime must force one way of life on everyone, we can expect national political divides to grow ever more bitter. Author:

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power and Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has a bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado. He was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

 

SOURCEJack Heart

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

8 COMMENTS

  1. One man referred to it as “the professional wrestling-esque duopoly that passes for American politics.” When Luke Joseph Scarpa, who played Chief Jay Strongbow in the ring, was asked his tribe he shrugged his shoulders and said “I dunno, Wopaho I guess.” Indeed scripted and rehearsed, after all the pretended anger, hate, and supposed violence in the ring they go out and hoist a cold one or two together and plan on where their families will vacation together. It has been attributed to Einstein that “Two things are considered infinite, the universe and stupidity. I’m not sure about the the universe.”

  2. Jack, I did watch this as a Live Stream before you posted this. My only concern is that at times during Mr. Christoforou’s other videos he drops hints about how good Trump was. Such as the last time we had peace was when Trump was in office. Setting aside all else, Chuck Baldwin wrote in his syndicated column that in one term Trump out-bombed Obama in two terms, including George W. Bush in two terms. If that is true, and the statistics should not lie, then I cannot consider Trump to be a man of peace. In the United States of Amnesia we have forgotten who tore up the INF. This damaged Russia – US relations. If there were violations diplomacy such as a team of experts from both sides should have investigated, provided their results, and solutions should have been sought. If the current administration is driving the train into hell I cannot ignore Trump having laid much of the track. The old saying is “two can live as cheaply as one.” To which a cynic added “if one is a horse and the other a sparrow.” Given two plies of horse manure one may well have more undigested oat groats than the other. To a sparrow that is the better choice and the one to sift. To me both piles are still horse manure. Other than these concerns I fine the analysis by these men excellent. My best.

    • Excellent comment Dan, its comments like yours which is why I even bother with comment sections anymore. Trump is still the president, of course he’s not really in charge the Bushes, the Hayden’s, ect are running things just like they have since day 1 after Independence Day. Keynesian economics has run out of mirrors and the day of reckoning is upon them for all that money backed by nothing that they created. Even John Keynes in his latter years admitted that the state could not create fiat money forever and his system was unsustainable. So, an economic reset been in the works probably since the shrub was planted in the Whitehouse. Trump is the finest asset they ever had and Americans who just love a wrestling show will do whatever he says, even if he tells them to inject themselves with poison, as was proven. Why expend him on the great reset? Why not prop up the most useless career criminal in DC as president and let him take the fall for it? Then Trump returns triumphant with De Santis on the ticket, and all will be forgiven…

    • If the Dems thought Trump was finished, they wouldn’t drag this Jan 6 committee on forever. But, the Teflon man will evade capture and run again as an independent. He has more committed voters than anyone. And the Trumpsters are the only rabid gang out there. The Dem party is close to extinction and the next election may be the last of them on national level. What a fiasco. All according to script.

  3. Hiya Jack,

    I don’t think you can fairly say that Russia waltzed through the “best that NATO” has as military might. I’m surprised anyone can move tanks and gas forward with drone warfare…who wants to be a driver of a gas convoy..

    I also don’t think that that is a “test of the Anglo-American military might..”…what happened to NATO? Why just US and the UK? Add in Denmark and Finland….who are demonstrably adept at surviving next door to Mother Russia…

    The real goal of stirring up trouble is the establishment of a new Khazarian homeland…as you well know…And Putin wants to secure a GMO/mutagen free food source for his nation. The old borders were also strategically disadvantageous for defense by Russia.

    My prediction is a lot of displaced Christian Ukrainians and Muslim Ukrainians..and some Khazarian carpet-bagging….plus a state of the art defense system courtesy of the American taxpayer..sigh..

    • This comment is so stupid I should just delete it but since I know you are mentally impaired, and I feel sorry for you I will leave it, but the next time your gonna leave a comment please listen to the material provided before you comment on an hour and half video 15 minutes after its posted. Larry Johnson is one of the best the CIA ever had, and he believes Russia’s campaign through the Ukraine will be the blueprint for the future curriculum of military schools. Ukraine sports the hardest men in Europe, and they got trounced, have you taken a look at the “men” in the West lately or are you still too busy peeling the scabs off your face you acquired by insulting the Goddess?

Comments are closed.