ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,224
Neo-Federalism
A proposal: Neo-federalism as a new foundation for the US
=========================================================
*Clayton Bauman*, unaffiliated
June 2025
## Introduction
These ideas have been mulling in my mind for close to a decade now. With the world on the very precipice of nuclear annihilation, I think the time has come to commit them to binary.
I'm not a policy wonk, so I'm not sure if the term "neo-federalism" is already in use. If it is, I might have to find a better label. The term New Federalism refers to the Nixon-era attempts to roll back some of the damage of the New Deal but I want to be clear that neo-federalism is not that, it's something different.
## Neo-confederatism
Let's start with neo-confederatism as a baseline. The idea of confederatism is that each state in the Union should have the power to unilaterally secede at any time. From the standpoint of pure liberty, this is a very attractive doctrine. However, the fatal flaw in this system is that you cannot maintain a cohesive defense-pact and, failing that, you will break up and be picked off by the Unionists, which is exactly what happened during the US war of Northern aggression.
What has followed in the wake of that war is a rampant, unchecked Unionism and unilateral federalism whereby the Feds can simply do anything they deem to be legal because they are the ones who decide what is legal, including for themselves. This arrangement clearly has no connection to the Constitution that our Founders wrote -- the Federal government was *never* intended to be some kind of unchecked, self-determining, self-regulating, unilateral sledge-hammer beating down the States. The Founders foresaw a very minimal central government and it was their explicit goal to create such a government through the Constitution, whose architecture creates a power-balance between the Federal government and the States that, in the event of an out-and-out brawl, would be nearly evenly matched *with the balance of power in the hands of the States, and We The People*.
## Federalism
Federal power, in itself, should not be something to be feared. What makes it fearsome is the corruption of the popular understanding of it. It is not too high a bar to expect that the bulk of Americans should broadly understand the Federal architecture. It's not as obvious as basketball, but it's not even as complicated as a game of Bridge. The Federal government is formed *by the States*, who are each sovereign, *non-territorial* governments, for the common defense of the national border (which *is* territorial). The reason the States are not unified into a single national government is *explicitly* so that the laws will vary from State to State, by locality, and this creates what we call in modern times [A/B testing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing). The laws that the States can adopt are not unrestricted -- they must be constitutional and representative, and they must conform to the Constitution and laws of the United States. But within those restrictions, the States are free to innovate as they see fit. As working legal frameworks are discovered, they will tend to proliferate -- after all, if they can do it in such-and-such State, why can't we do it here? If the federal system were working properly, this would tend to create the much-dreaded "race to the bottom", meaning, all States would tend towards minimal governments, with the Federal government being a minimal government made in their like image, for the purpose of defending the borders, forming treaties, regulating commerce going in and out of the country and handling inter-State legal disputes. Just read the Constitution -- it's not a long read -- it's the most barebones architecture you can imagine and it precisely corresponds to what I have just summarized here.
## A review of the Declaration of Independence
Now, let's rewind back to the Declaration. In the Declaration, the Founders laid out the reason they were forming a new government. Some constitutional scholars compare the Declaration to articles of incorporation in the corporate law context. It declares the formation of a new institution and states what the new institution will be, why it will be created, what its purpose is and, in broad strokes, how it will operate. Thus, the Declaration is an integral part of the American legal framework -- the Constitution, without the Declaration, is just ink on parchment. The Declaration is what tells us *why* there is a Constitution, and what its purpose and scope is.
In particular, the Declaration starts with an explicit appeal to the Creator: all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, and this is a self-evident truth. That it is self-evident means that it requires no explanation -- if you don't get it, there's something wrong with your mind or you are just ignorant. And this self-evident truth is that we are created equal with certain rights, such as Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and others. Note that the mention of Life, Liberty, and so on, is meant to point to the metaphysical foundations of civil order. We're not talking about synthetic rights like "the right to vote" or "the right to medical care" or other "rights" you might feel like dreaming up. No, we're talking about foundational rights, rights like *habeas corpus*, without which, you are not even a legal *person*. Such rights are inalienable, meaning, you cannot be rid of them even if you wanted to, because they are assumed by the very act of acting. That is, to *do* anything at all, is to implicitly assert all these rights. So, for example, the protestors chanting "We want communism!" are engaging in a performative contradiction, because they are each asserting their own *individual right* to protest and chant, while denying that very right by the demonic political theory they are promoting. The Founders bypassed all this nonsense and went right to the heart of the matter -- we're talking about inalienable rights, which rights are *self-evident* to anyone who is not an incompetent.
In the Declaration, it particularly states that the People have the right to "alter or to abolish [government destructive to the ends for which it was created], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Notice the phrase **and to institute new Government**. This phrase is where I first got the idea I am calling neo-federalism. The idea is that we do not simply *abolish* the Federal government, and call it a day, which is the mistake of confederatism. No, we alter or abolish it **and institute new Government** in its place. This is a very big difference because confederatism leads to anarchic disintegration and is unstable for forming a collective defense-pact and this is why Unionism destroys confederatism.
## Lessons from the Reformation
The Reformation is broadly misunderstood today. It is often mis-labeled "the Protestant Reformation" but the term "Protestant" is a derisive label that was hurled at the Reformers that has, nevertheless, somehow managed to persist. The term "Protestant" still subtly attributes legitimacy to the claims of catholicity by the church of Rome -- if we are protesting, then we are protesting *something* and that something must exist in order to be protested. Rather, the Reformers denied *altogether* any claim or existence of catholicity by the church of Rome -- it is not, never was, and can never be catholic! In this claim, the Reformers were not stating their view about how things should be, in their opinion, rather, they were simply giving an objective description of the state of affairs. The lie of catholiticity was exposed no later than the 11th century Schism between East and West, when the churches of the East removed the honorary appellation "first among equals" which they had previously accorded to the bishop of Rome. Thus, the Reformers were not merely claiming to "protest" something that actually exists and can be protested, rather, they were utterly denying the existence of that claim (of catholicity) at its very root, and not merely as a matter of their own opinion, but as an objective and undeniable fact of history. The Reformation was an Emperor's New Clothes moment -- it was the moment in history when that which was obvious to all in the West was finally being said aloud.
The other major misunderstanding of the Reformation that is prevalent today is the idea that the Reformers were a breakaway movement. The saying became common among the Reformers, "We did not leave Rome, Rome left us." The point is that, whatever of the church of Jesus was still alive under the umbrella of Rome was not the thing being rejected by the Reformers. Rather, it was the debauchery, heresy, apostasy and antichrist establishment of the Roman magisterium that the Reformers were rejecting. Luther, Calvin and the other early reformers had hoped to *reform* the church in the West, which is why they described themselves as reformers. The point was not to reject the church, but to reform it. Those who rejected reformation of a patently corrupt, anti-God, anti-Scripture and antichrist magisterium were not "the church", they were simply apostates who had captured the mantle of the church. They aped all the outward rituals of the church but, in reality, they were apostates and agents of Satan within the church, to destroy it from within. And the Reformers did not shrink back from such language at all, because the stakes were (and are) that high and, being present in that epoch, they had complete knowledge of all the relevant details. It was not *the church as such* which the Reformers opposed but, rather, *this* specific, corrupt church in Rome.
Understanding the Reformation and how it viewed the church of Rome is key to understanding neo-federalism. It is not *union as such* that must be opposed but, rather *this* specific Union which has become repugnant to the very Constitution which created it, and hostile to the ends for which it was created, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
## The Pirate's Bay: Washington, DC
I will not review the whole timeline of DC's tyranny which is so enormous it could fill a small library full of books. Instead, I want to give a bird's-eye view of why it is so wrong and why nothing has been done about it.
Washington, DC is the global hub of power-worship. It is encoded into its very architecture, the Washington obelisk is a vulgar display of the object of worship of its city: raw power in the basest, most animalistic sense of that word. Of course, every capital in the world is chock full of power-worshipers, so what makes Washington so different? The difference is that the culture of Washington is a perversion of meritocracy -- in genuine meritocracy, the best rise to the top by promotion in recognition of their excellence. But in Washington, the worst rise to the top and are promoted for their commitment to power-in-itself. This creates an evolutionary competition in which all participants in the Washington establishment are seeking to claw their way to the top of the pile over the skulls of their defeated enemies, ensuring that only the most craven, vicious, blood-thirsty power-worshipers can ever make it to the pinnacles of power. The 10th rank below are blood-thirsty pirates whose malicious gaze could melt the skin off a Kodiak bear -- those in the pinnacles of power are demonic on a level beyond description in human language.
Washington, DC is a global hive of pirates. They have as much to do with the Declaration and the Constitution as a B-2 bomber has to do with Kitty Hawk. Whatever this alien cabal is, it is not the subject of either Declaration or Constitution. Like the Roman magisterium, they will point to their pedigree. "We are the successors of the Founders!" But what is it to be a successor? Is it just an unbroken historical chain, for the sake of mere consistency, that hobgoblin of small minds? If the successors have become hostile to the ends for which government exists, then they are liable to be abolished and replaced. Succession is of no consequence and those who plead succession as a defense for tyranny are simply betting on a bluff. The solution is to call their bluff.
The Supreme Court, just as the other branches, is created by the Constitution. For this reason, the Supreme Court is not the final interpreter of the Constitution -- that would be a simple circular-argument fallacy. Rather, when even the Supreme Court cannot rouse itself to oppose the pirate tyranny which has hijacked Washington, that is a white-flag waved to We The People to indicate distress. The former Union has become absolutely incorrigible and will not listen even to legal reason. It is naught but a hive of pirates.
## A neo-federalist movement
So, in review, what is neo-federalism? Neo-federalism is the idea that we ought to abolish **and replace** the sitting US Federal government with such government as We The People deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. The basis for this abolition arises from the self-evident rights which We The People have to form a government to provide for the common defense, and to throw off any government, regardless of its history, pedigree and succession, which becomes hostile to the ends for which it was formed. The authority for such an overthrow comes not from a protest or rejection of the government that the Founders established but, rather, from an *embrace* of it. Washington, DC ought to be evacuated and disinhabited, and everyone comprising that power network either banished, executed or sent home precisely because we require a government that is *federalist*, not a government that is tyrannical and globalist, masquerading as a federalist government.
Neo-federalism is not secessionist or, at the very least, it does not view secession as an end-in-itself because it destroys the possibility of a stable defense-pact. Therefore, it eats away at the heart of any union, including a good one. That it also eats the heart of a bad union does not justify it, it's just a toxin. Secession might be a temporary measure to catalyze reforming a more perfect Union but, in this case, secession is only the means to an end, it is not the end-in-itself. For this reason, neo-confederatism is not a viable reply to the runaway federalism that has been strangulating this once-great nation since the war of Northern aggression.
We The People still have the very same inalienable right in 2025 to alter or abolish entirely any government which is hostile to the purpose for which it was created. And our power to enact such change is among those inalienable rights which the Founders correctly observed are *self-evident*. Those who cannot see that we have these rights, and self-evidently so, are incompetents and should be ignored.
The Tea Party and MAGA movements both had germs of neo-federalism in them but I think these germs were usually bullhorned down by either real neo-confederates or DC spooks trying to bait secessionism so they could round up political dissenters. The motto of a neo-federalist movement would be this: **Abolish And Replace**. We are not interested in running anarchy, nor are we interested in weakening our collective defense by dissolving the Union or allowing it to crumble through piecewise secession, rather, we are interested in an actually **federal** government which operates and abides by the supreme law of the land, which is the US Constitution.
I am neither a policy-wonk, nor a movement-builder, but I can recognize the seeds of a potential movement in the soil of 2025 America. Our "leaders", if they can even be called that, are incompetents. They should be in supervised care homes, or asylums, not running the largest, richest and most powerful government on earth. With proper care, I believe the seeds of neo-federalism could be cultivated by people who are skilled in movement-building. This may be our only option besides nuclear annihilation. Now is the time for all Americans to start thinking with their tricorn hats affixed, and muskets at the ready. The time for standing by while the world burns down has past. This time, the fire may be a thermonuclear one over your own town.
Last edited:
