Northern League in a General Historical Perspective

How is it that bodies politic, or a particular body politic, which have enjoyed the political, military, and economic blessings of the liberal revolution (in some cases for more than two centuries) have failed so miserably on the social and cultural levels?
Why have human individuals and local communities in these bodies politic squandered their freedom and not assumed the responsibility of acting together so that they could live autonomously, instead of letting themselves be decapitated by the pitiful quality of mass culture, chaotic consumerism, and a worsening quality of life, thus risking to lose their freedom?

The peoples of the West have done relatively well under the nation-State system which was consolidated in the Eighteenth Century and reached its zenith in the Twentieth Century. The body politic in the form of the nation-State purported to protect individual liberty and provide a durable framework for 'rationalizing' economic life and a system of national accounts.

By the end of the 1960s it became evident, in the face of unprecedented material wealth, that the ruling classes, occupying positions of power accumulated in the progressively centralized institutions of the nation-State, had decided that instead of devoting the weight of resources to seriously educating the people and allowing space for the development of local culture, they would drug them with State-run Welfare and television.
Thus the institutions of the Welfare State were consolidated.

The end of the Cold War removed all doubts in the West that the nation-State was in dire financial straits as well, due to the incorrigible inefficiency and corruption caused by Welfarism.

Now in the mid-1990s we have the Welfare State because it is in the interests of the whore-masters who (mis)manage it and because it benefits the parasites who hover around it like so many viruses that suck the vital energy out of a nervous system (financial system), and not because it is for the material or moral well-being of the people.

At this point, sincere, free-thinking women and men can no longer support with a clear moral conscience such a centralized, bankrupt, oppressive, perverse, profligate, high-tax system.

As we approach the Twenty-First Century, that body politic known as the nation-State, especially the inward-looking part of the nation-State system, is so corrupted, decayed, and misorganized that its replacement with another form of State which is more flexible and disciplined is inevitable.

Federalism is, above all, a concept of sovereignty by which culturally strong local communities grant only those necessary governing powers (such as for military and foreign affairs) on a contractual basis to higher levels of the body politic which, at its pinnacle, forms an efficient, well-disciplined State which guarantees and regulates competition in a borderless economy and protects individual freedom and human rights from within and without.
Federalism does not promise paradise. Federalism urgently suggests that only hard work and individual responsibility can make the democratic body politic function in spite of its imperfections. Only if local communities and local cultures are strong can we bring forth the best of our civic traditions into the global economy and higher levels of government.

The federalist movement must pose to itself and develop a comprehensive answer to the following question: how do we manage the transition to provide for a stable and disciplined future while allowing for the maximum of individual choice and freedom? How do we help the West to avoid the risk of degenerating into a worse form of cultural and financial chaos?

The Northern League proposes to develop and promote the federalist idea in the best traditions of Western democracy.