From the Lie to the Blueprint: How Social Security Rewired America and Set the Stage for Civilizational Collapse

The birth of intergenerational debt didn’t just change our politics—it changed our future. Here’s how to fix it

The key to understanding immigration is not found at the border. It is not found in immigration law either. It is found in Social Security.

This is the story of how a single political innovation, the promise of future benefits with future money, redefined citizenship, restructured government, and made dependency the new American ideal.

From the New Deal to modern immigration, the fiscal lie became a moral one. Reversing it will require more than reform. It will require a radical realignment with the concept of Federalism and the 10th Amendment. Done right, however, the blueprint contained within could save not just our Republic, but the entirety of Western Civilization.

This essay traces the origins of our civilizational crisis to a deceptively simple idea: that governments can promise future benefits using money they have not yet collected. That idea began with a lie. It ends with a choice between managed decline and the restoration of self-government built on liberty.

Social Security is not a pension system, and it was never designed to be. Nor is it an insurance program, despite the carefully crafted name. From the beginning, it served as a political mechanism. It allowed the Roosevelt administration to fund the New Deal by disguising public debt as personal savings. It also embedded permanent deficit spending into the structure of the federal government.

Most Americans do not realize that the payroll tax which funded Social Security took effect on January 1, 1937, while the first check was not issued until 1940, when Ida May Fuller of Vermont received $22.54.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, the United States was still reeling from the Great Depression. He wanted a sustained flow of federal money to finance a sweeping expansion of government power over public works, subsidies, job programs, and welfare, organized under the banner of the New Deal, but he lacked the political support to raise taxes openly.

Social Security solved that problem.

The Act imposed a six percent payroll tax and promised that the funds would be set aside in government bonds to provide retirement income in the future, but for the first three years, no benefits were paid. That meant every dollar collected was immediately available for spending. In fact, the law required the government to spend that money in order to create the debt for Social Security to invest in.

From the beginning, every cent was spent the moment it was collected. There was no trust fund, investment portfolio, or account. The entire amount was absorbed into general revenue and used to bankroll Roosevelt’s political agenda.

To put this in context, total federal revenue when Roosevelt took office, including all taxes, was just 5.1 percent of GDP. Before the Depression, federal debt stood at 16 percent of GDP, most of it from unpaid war costs. Deficit spending was not yet the norm. By the time Roosevelt was in office, that number had climbed to 40 percent, driven by the economic collapse and by programs intended to address it.

It is important to understand that the recession triggered by the 1929 crash was brief. Unemployment never reached ten percent, and by the summer of 1930, it had fallen back below five percent. That recession was already over.

Then came the interventions.

The Federal Reserve had been created in 1913 to protect monetary stability by managing gold reserves, but between October 1929 and July 1930, it allowed the U.S. money supply to shrink by one-third. This contraction caused prices to fall, credit to seize, and investors to panic. We entered into a brand new recession that deepened into an historic collapse.

Policy failures followed. The United States exported 80% of what it produced, yet Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, sparking a global trade war. At the same time, Roosevelt raised effective tax rates by more than 100 percent with the payroll tax.

The Dust Bowl compounded the suffering.

We teach our children that the Great Depression was a market failure. That is not true. It was the result of monetary mismanagement, protectionism, and central planning.

Rather than let markets recover, Roosevelt doubled down. He raised taxes and used the money to expand federal control over the economy.

The so-called trust fund never held real savings. It held debt that would have to be paid by future taxpayers, with interest.

This maneuver allowed Roosevelt to spend the money once, then borrow the same amount again. The first payment funded his programs. The second created the illusion of savings, but once borrowed, it too was spent.

For three years, that was all Social Security did.

The debt it generated had to be serviced with taxes that had not yet been collected. This locked permanent deficit spending into federal finance. It gave the appearance of solvency while deepening dependence on future revenue.

The Supreme Court removed any doubt about the program’s nature in Flemming v. Nestor (1960). In that decision, the Court ruled that Americans have no legal claim to Social Security benefits. Congress can change or eliminate them at will.

There is no contract or legal ownership. What exists is a politically managed transfer from the working to the retired, where today’s payments are used to cover yesterday’s promises.

In 1945, there were 42 workers supporting each retiree. Today, there are fewer than three. By 2035, the ratio will fall to two. As people live longer and have fewer children, the system is collapsing under its own demographic weight.

It was never solvent. It only appeared to work while the population grew.

This is not just an American story. The United States copied its system from the one Otto von Bismarck introduced in Germany in 1889. Nearly every Western country adopted a version of the same model, and all of them were built on a single assumption: that the population would always expand.

That assumption is no longer true.

These systems were never designed to function in a world of aging societies, shrinking families, and slowing economic growth. But that is the world we now inhabit.

The Math No One Can Escape

The replacement-level fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. That is the number required to maintain a stable population. Every major Western nation now falls short of that number:

• United States: 1.6
  

• Canada: 1.4
  

• United Kingdom: 1.5
  

• France: 1.7
  

• Germany: 1.5
  

• Italy: 1.2
  

• Spain: 1.2
  

• Poland: 1.2
  

• Japan: 1.3
  

• South Korea: 0.72 (the lowest in the world)
  

Even countries like France and Sweden, which offer generous family subsidies, have failed to restore sustainable fertility rates. The consequence is straightforward. Each generation is now smaller than the one before it. A shrinking base cannot support an expanding structure of retirees who rely on public benefits.

In 1950, the median age in the United States was 30. Today, it is over 39. In Germany and Japan, it has surpassed 45. As people live longer and have fewer children, the ratio of workers to retirees continues to decline.

This is not just a budget problem. It is a civilizational one.

Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and public pensions do not function on the basis of individual contributions. They depend entirely on the taxes paid by the next generation.

Their viability assumes that people will have children, and that those children will grow up capable and willing to support the system. When people stop having children, or when the next generation cannot shoulder the burden, the system begins to fail.

To postpone this failure, many governments have turned to immigration. That strategy may buy time, but it is not a long-term fix. Immigrant fertility rates also decline, especially as families adopt the same economic and cultural habits that suppress birthrates among native populations.

No group, native or immigrant, is growing fast enough to offset the combined effects of delayed marriage, declining family formation, economic instability, and cultural detachment.

Acknowledging demographic collapse would require confronting the flaws in the assumptions behind modern entitlement programs. It would also require admitting that many of the policies meant to maximize personal autonomy have weakened the family, eroded tradition, and left people disconnected from any greater purpose.

Rather than face these failures, political leaders change the subject. They present immigration as a permanent solution and accuse critics of prejudice.

They ignore the math.

But the math is real. And the collapse it signals is no longer something that can be delayed by rhetoric.

It Did Not Have to Be This Way

The crisis we face was not inevitable. It is the result of design choices, some made in ignorance, others in pursuit of power.

There was a better path. We could have structured society around a simple principle: that each generation should finance its own future.

Instead of promising benefits that depend on taxing our children and grandchildren, we could have built a system in which individuals accumulate and own real assets during their working years and draw down that wealth in retirement.

Such a system would have been inherently sustainable. It would not have required a growing tax base, a permanent class of working young, or a revolving door of imported labor. It would have respected the dignity of individual ownership and rewarded thrift, investment, and economic productivity.

Imagine a model in which mandatory retirement contributions were placed into individually owned, privately invested accounts. These funds could be diversified across the economy and grow with productivity, innovation, and enterprise. Retirement would be based on the accumulation of real capital, not a government promise that someone else will pay the bill.

Versions of this already exist. Nations like Chile and Singapore implemented private retirement systems with strong results. These models empower workers, relieve demographic pressure, and insulate national finances from birthrate-driven collapse.

Under such a system:

• Each person’s retirement would reflect their actual economic contribution.
  

• The burden on future generations would be eliminated.
  

• Families would retain intergenerational wealth rather than surrender it to the state.
  

• The financial sector would prioritize long-term investment over short-term consumption.
  

• Redistribution could still occur by taxing those who do well to provide a safety net for those who do not.
  

Singapore’s Central Provident Fund is a mandatory savings program in which individuals build up retirement, housing, and medical reserves through personal accounts. Chile’s system, though modified in recent years, demonstrated that long-term solvency and individual ownership are achievable.

We are told such systems are unstable, and in a sense that is true. Chile recently experienced a major recession and reduced retiree benefits from five times the return our program offers to three times, yet even at the reduced level, Chile’s system still outperformed Social Security by a wide margin. Once the recession was over, payments rebounded.

In the United States, the current program pays an average of $1,915 a month, taken directly from the next generation of workers. If we had Chile’s system, the average payout would be around $9,575. In a worst-case recession, it might drop to $5,745. Either of those figures is vastly better than what American seniors receive today.

I can understand how someone expecting $9,575 a month might be upset to receive only $5,745 during a downturn, but it is difficult to understand how either number could be considered worse than $1,915.

Our Social Security model requires the state to confiscate wealth from workers to pay retirees, and then to repeat the process indefinitely. It hides insolvency behind debt, justifies mass immigration to expand the tax base, and masks structural failure with moral language.

We could have chosen a sustainable, decentralized model, but that would have meant limiting state power and trusting people to manage their own lives. It would have kept the state as a referee rather than a provider. For those who sought to centralize authority, especially during the 20th century when collectivist ideologies were in fashion, such a model was unacceptable.

Programs like Social Security were sold as compassion, but they functioned as tools of dependency and control. They shifted wealth from individuals to the state and gave politicians the power to trade promises for votes while pushing the costs onto future generations.

This was not a mistake. It was a trade-off. And now the bill is coming due.

No Good Crisis Goes to Waste

Once the structural need for more workers became politically undeniable, it created an opportunity, not just for economic triage, but for social reengineering. The West needed bodies to keep the system afloat.

Political elites saw in that need a chance to import more than labor. They imported dependency and cultural fragmentation.

The demographic crisis did not simply make immigration politically convenient. It made it necessary, and that necessity was weaponized.

The United States began actively funding illegal immigration, directing an estimated $165 billion per year toward the process. The mechanism was simple. Money flowed through USAID, often disguised as “development aid,” and was then funneled to NGOs acting as state-sanctioned smugglers.

These organizations provided legal services, transportation, shelter, and logistics for border crossings - all funded by American taxpayers. They coordinated with the United Nations, which received billions more in U.S. support to serve as a global clearinghouse for mass migration.

The International Organization for Migration even placed signs in migrant camps throughout South and Central America informing migrants that the UN and United States were funding their relocation. Photographic evidence of these signs has been provided by observers including Dr. Bret Weinstein, who documented them during investigations into U.S.-funded migration corridors.

This was not a humanitarian mission. It was not charity. It was demographic manipulation carried out with political intent.

When populations are cohesive, they are difficult to control. They vote based on shared interests, shared values, and a shared understanding of national identity.

When populations are fractured, politics becomes tribal. Leaders can buy votes with benefits, suppress dissent through fear, and consolidate power in the chaos.

The uncomfortable truth is that the political leadership of the West did not merely accept destabilization. They engineered it.

Under the banner of democracy promotion, the United States and its NATO allies launched the Arab Spring. What followed was not a spontaneous uprising, but a series of CIA-sponsored regime change operations from Tunisia to Libya to Syria.

• Libya was destabilized and turned into a failed state, flooded with weapons and slave markets.
  

• Syria descended into civil war, not only due to internal strife but because the United States armed so-called “moderate rebels” who later became the backbone of ISIS. When ISIS convoys appeared on television, nearly every truck was the same: a white Toyota. ISIS did not order them. Our intelligence services did.
  

• In Iraq, the power vacuum created by our invasion and premature withdrawal completed the setup.
  

We funded and trained Islamist militants under the false banner of democracy. Then we acted surprised when those militants coalesced into a genocidal caliphate that swept across Iraq and Syria.

In truth, we created ISIS, just as we created the conditions for mass migration out of the Middle East and North Africa.

This was not the work of the United States alone. It was done in coordination with NATO allies. Millions of people with values incompatible with Western norms were displaced and then deliberately relocated into Europe.

The goal was not peace.

If peace had been the goal, then as multiculturalism failed across Europe, leaders would have slowed the influx. Instead, they restricted speech. The goal was transformation.

Once the migrant waves reached Europe and North America, the public was told to accommodate them.

Assimilation was rebranded as oppression. National identity was denounced as racism. Declining wages, rising crime, cultural conflict, and overburdened welfare systems were all reframed as the price of compassion.

But this was never about compassion. It was about control.

Each wave of migration disrupted the cultural cohesion that once allowed nations to govern themselves. It redrew the electorate, shifted the conversation, and rewrote the moral framework of the West under a new language of inclusion, and one that rejected sovereignty to embrace subjugation.

The demographic crisis created the demand. Social engineering supplied the solution. Together, they erased the idea of a shared national future and replaced it with a permanent, managed crisis.

We were told immigration was about helping the desperate. In truth, it was about making the free desperate enough to stop resisting.

Across much of Europe, it worked.

First Peoples Are Sacred—Unless They Are Jewish or European

The idea that mass migration has been used as a political tool to destabilize Western nations is controversial. In the United States, it is often dismissed as “Replacement Theory,” yet the evidence is not hard to find. All we have to do is compare how different governments treat indigenous populations around the world.

We are told to respect the “first peoples” of every land, and rightly so. Across the globe, there is growing consensus that indigenous cultures should be preserved and protected from the homogenizing forces of globalization and colonialism.

But there is one glaring exception: Europe.

In Europe, the belief that native populations have a right to cultural continuity is branded as xenophobic. The same governments that protect Amazonian tribes, celebrate Aboriginal traditions, and lament the cultural erosion of Tibet are actively erasing the cultural identity of their own majority populations.

That’s why statements like those made in Sweden should alarm us. In 2015, Ingrid Lomfors, then head of Sweden’s official Forum for Living History, claimed that “There is no native Swedish culture.” Around the same time, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt declared, “Sweden belongs to the immigrants, not the Swedes… There is a choice of which country Sweden will be.” He went further, calling national borders “fictional” and describing native Swedes as “uninteresting.”

This is not just hypocrisy. It is evidence that mass migration is being used not to strengthen societies, but to destabilize them.

The same American politicians who denounce “Replacement Theory” as a racist conspiracy have also acknowledged the political strategy behind it.

In 2002, Democratic strategist Ruy Teixeira co-authored The Emerging Democratic Majority, arguing that increased immigration would create a long-term electoral advantage for Democrats. That idea quickly moved from theory to strategy.

In 2008, Rahm Emanuel stated plainly, “If you’re a Democrat, you want immigration. You want more people coming in.” By 2013, then–San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro predicted that demographic change would flip Texas blue: “In a couple of presidential cycles, you’ll be on election night, announcing that we’re calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee.”

In 2015, Joe Biden told a Latino advocacy group, “Folks like you... are the future of this country.” As president in 2021, he repeated the message: “It’s not a bad thing… It’s a source of our strength.”

That same year, Chuck Schumer argued for amnesty by linking it directly to workforce shortages: “Now more than ever we’re short of workers… if we want to remain a great nation, we’re going to need to welcome immigrants, and a path to citizenship for all 11 million [undocumented immigrants].”

Stacey Abrams was even more blunt: “Demographic change is now the political power we’re wielding.” And Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Hillary Clinton, removed all ambiguity in a 2018 memo: “Democrats are not afraid of immigrants. That’s why they vote for us now.”

No one demands that Japan dilute its national identity in the name of inclusion. No one insists that Uganda or Pakistan rewrite their constitutions to accommodate mass migration. No one asks Brazil to abandon its language, religion, or customs for the sake of outsiders.

But when it comes to France, Germany, Britain, Canada, or the United States, the moral framework flips. Erasing the historical majority becomes virtuous. Abandoning shared language, faith, and culture becomes progressive. “Diversity” no longer means variety. It means erasure.

Historian Will Durant once wrote that for a civilization to endure, it must preserve at least two of three social bonds: shared religion, shared culture, and shared language. It is no coincidence that these are precisely the bonds Western leaders have sought to weaken.

We are told this is justice. We are told it is compassion. In reality, it is a coordinated campaign to delegitimize national identity in the West.

Creating dependency through entitlements is not enough. Importing new populations is not enough. The native population must also be taught to view its own existence as shameful.

They are told their history is a stain, their culture is oppressive, and their future must be surrendered in the name of progress.

But if cultural survival is a right for every other people on Earth, then it is also a right for Europeans, and for anyone whose ancestors built something worth preserving.

A border is not a hate crime. A language is not a weapon. A shared identity is not an act of violence. These are the foundations of a functioning society, and the West is being taught to destroy them, on purpose.

The Global Demographic Cliff

Even if the moral and political costs of mass migration were ignored, the strategy still fails on its own terms. Immigration cannot fix the demographic collapse driving Social Security insolvency.

The United Nations projects that global population will peak around 2086, and working-age populations in most countries will begin shrinking long before then.

China, once seen as an endless labor supply, is already in freefall. In 2022, its population declined for the first time in sixty years. By 2100, its working-age population is expected to shrink by nearly 400 million. Japan and South Korea are already on this path. Europe and North America are not far behind.

Even developing nations are not immune. Fertility rates in India, Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia have all fallen below replacement level. Africa’s birthrates remain high, but the region lacks the infrastructure and education systems to support migration on the scale needed to offset the collapse of the working-age population in wealthier countries.

Soon, there will be nowhere left to draw from, and no surplus population to import.

The strategy of solving demographic decline through immigration was never sustainable. At best, it could delay the collapse. In practice, it compounds the crisis by introducing dependence and division into already fragile systems.

By the middle of this century, the reality will be inescapable. Nearly every major country will face the same combination of problems: an aging population, a shrinking labor force, and exploding entitlement costs. The pyramid scheme of intergenerational transfer payments will collapse.

And this time, there will be no younger generation elsewhere to save it.

The people who built this structure knew what was coming. They just hoped they would be gone before the consequences arrived.

I have children. I want them to inherit something better.

Why the Elites Do Not Want Freedom

To understand why freedom is under assault, we must examine the psychology and ideology of the global ruling class.

By “global ruling class,” I do not mean ‘elected leaders.’ President Donald Trump, for example, is arguably the most powerful individual in the world, but he was not part of this class. He was an outsider who opposed the direction set by the global elite, and won two elections by doing so.

During his first term, permanent bureaucrats inside the U.S. government worked to undermine his agenda. In response, the Heritage Foundation developed a plan to restore presidential authority by legally rebalancing power within the Executive Branch. While Trump has not implemented every part of Project 2025, he is pursuing that key reform.

Other world leaders, such as Javier Milei in Argentina and Giorgia Meloni in Italy, are also challenging the influence of the global governing class.

When I refer to this leadership class, I mean the network of technocrats, bureaucrats, financiers, and institutional power brokers - the kind I detailed in The Quiet Coup: How the Intelligence State Took Over America.

The motivations of the global elite are not entirely identical, but they converge around two core beliefs:

1. Ordinary people cannot be trusted with power.
   

2. Economic development must be tightly controlled to prevent ecological disaster.
   

These ideas are not fringe. They are openly endorsed by the world’s most powerful institutions and accepted as settled truth among global planners.

1. Distrust of Ordinary People

Freedom is threatening to those who believe they are inherently superior. Many global elites, especially those within the NGO-academic-policy nexus, see themselves as a moral and intellectual aristocracy. They do not oppose inequality in principle; they oppose outcomes they cannot manage. In their view, a truly fair system would concentrate power and resources in the hands of people like themselves.

This disdain is not hidden. The World Economic Forum has explicitly called for a transformation of political systems to suppress nationalism and populism. In its Global Risks Report 2023, the WEF warned:

“Widening inequality and discontent with existing democratic institutions are leading to increasing support for authoritarian alternatives and populist leaders.”

The message is clear: when people vote the “wrong” way, the problem is the people, not the institutions.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has gone even further, advocating for a transformation of human identity itself. In The Fourth Industrial Revolution, he writes:

“The mind-boggling innovations triggered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution... will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.”

This is not the language of liberty. It is the language of a technocratic regime that sees human freedom not as a virtue but as a variable to be managed.

2. Managing the Decline of the West

The second belief driving global planners is that unrestrained development, especially in the Global South, will destroy the planet. This idea traces back to the 1972 Club of Rome report, The Limits to Growth, which predicted ecological collapse due to rising population and consumption. The report was based on flawed assumptions: that humanity would neither discover new resources nor innovate its way around scarcity.

Though the predictions were widely discredited, the worldview remained.

In their 1991 follow-up, The First Global Revolution, the Club of Rome wrote:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

That phrasing, “we came up with the idea,” is telling. The crisis was manufactured to justify control.

If you wonder why we aren’t aggressively transitioning to carbon capture or nuclear energy - technologies that solve the problem without destroying lifestyles - it’s because those solutions don’t require submission.

The belief that humanity itself is the threat has become central to global governance. The United Nations’ Agenda 2030 calls for a “profound transformation” of society, including behavioral change, reduced consumption, and economic restructuring. One goal reads:

“Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns... through education, awareness-raising, and institutional frameworks that support behavioral change.”

This is not about reducing poverty. It is about limiting access to cars, air conditioning, meat, and upward mobility for the billions who might demand them, while also taking them away from the non-elite who already have them.

The WEF has embraced this vision. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Klaus Schwab called for a global reset:

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”

Permanent changes to work, travel, consumption, and governance were proposed. The WEF’s Global Future Council on Consumption aimed to “shift societal norms” and craft “new narratives” to reduce material use. One white paper described “new forms of governance” as necessary for building “post-consumer” economies.

In short, freedom must be sacrificed, not for profit, but for control, and not by tanks, but through financial systems, media influence, and transnational agreements.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a worldview. It is a belief that order must be imposed, growth must be limited, and decision-making must be centralized. Freedom is redefined as the freedom to comply.

This also explains the synergy between climate mandates, immigration policy, pandemic restrictions, digital surveillance, and currency centralization. These are not separate issues. They are tools of the same vision: a sustainable future where elites manage decline, suppress dissent, and control the trajectory of human life.

They call it progress. What it really is, is planned regression; a retreat from prosperity, autonomy, and liberty.

In the world they are building, you can change your gender, but not your future, your family, or your job.

A Better System: Scaling Civilization by Restoring the Constitution

The solution is not contraction. It is not governance by unelected visionaries who believe humanity can only survive if liberty dies, either.

The answer is the opposite: expansion, not of empire, and not of bureaucracy, but of freedom. The key is restoring constitutional limits on central authority, and letting liberty scale.

The Founders built a system of sovereign states, bound by a federal government that was deliberately limited in power. Article I, Section 8 defined the scope of federal authority. The Tenth Amendment made clear that all powers not expressly granted to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights protected individual liberty from all levels of government.

This is not an outdated model, but a scalable architecture for human flourishing.

It is true that America did not always extend that framework equally, especially in states that allowed slavery and later, Jim Crow, but even early on, some states came close. New Jersey, for example, allowed Black women to vote in 1889.

It is still possible to build a more perfect union.

If we are to expand the United States to include nations like Israel, Britain, or Poland, then we must first restore the Constitution to what it was designed to be: a covenant of limited powers. It is not enough to promise that the sovereignty of new states will be respected; we must make that respect legally binding by restoring the structural barriers that once prevented federal overreach.

This means more than simply reaffirming the Tenth Amendment. It means making the Tenth Amendment enforceable, and giving the states, not the federal courts, the final say in whether federal action violates it. A two-thirds majority of state legislatures must be empowered to nullify any federal law, regulation, or ruling that exceeds enumerated powers or intrudes upon moral and cultural sovereignty. No unelected bureaucracy in Washington should ever have the authority to rewrite the social contract of a sovereign people, whether in Utah or in Jerusalem.

Just as importantly, no new federal power should come into existence without the consent of the states themselves.

If the states are to welcome new members into the union, they must also reclaim their original role as the guardians of limited government.

Without these guarantees, any new state would not be joining the republic the Founders built, but the administrative state that replaced it.

The Founders wisely designed the system to grow; to expand the umbrella of liberty to any people and any nation willing to uphold its principles. This concept is critical - only a Federal Government that stays in its lane and allows member states total sovereignty within that framework would be attractive to join.

As for existing states, there would have to be a framework for spinning off unconstitutional Federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, onto the states, and then to leave the states alone.

Government should exist to protect liberty, not to manage decline.

Imagine Germany and France, each retaining their culture and language, but governed by the same constitutional framework that protects the rights of citizens in Michigan or Wisconsin. Local laws and traditions would remain, but every person would be protected by the same Bill of Rights.

It is easy to imagine Iran using proxies to fire missiles and rockets into the nation of Israel, but were Israel a Sovereign State within the United States, any such attack would be met with overwhelming force, such that even Iran would see it as suicidal. Statehood, under a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment (protecting Israel’s autonomy), immediately solves Israel’s security problems.

I use Israel as a specific example because of their unique security needs, but Israel is not central to this blueprint, and in fact the notion that it should join the United States might be even less popular than in England. And yet, if we separate our emotions, it is worth discussion.

This is not as strange as it sounds. Hawaii and Alaska were once distant frontiers. So was Texas. Today we share NATO, intelligence networks, and deep economic integration with the Western world. A constitutional alliance is the next logical step.

We would not force anyone to join our union. We would simply offer it as a choice. In the specific case of Israel we would have to find a way to square Israel’s standing as a Jewish state with the First Amendment’s prohibition of a state religion, but we could find a way to accommodate this.

This model works because it trusts people to govern themselves - and trusts states with powers normally reserved for nations. Under federalism, the states essentially are nations in every sense other than the powers specifically granted the Federal Government.

The true obstacle is not cultural diversity. It is the overreach of centralized authority. The global ruling class sees liberty as a threat because it empowers the “wrong” people. That is the problem.

If the federal government did only what it was supposed to do, and nothing more, then liberty would be free to grow, and with it, civilization.

The brilliance of this model is that it allows difference. A state like California could embrace socialism as long as it protected civil rights and let people move freely. That is real federalism. That is real freedom.

This is not a pipe dream. It is a blueprint.

The problem isn’t the vision. The problem is that we have let the federal government grow so large, so bloated, and so intrusive that we may no longer be worth joining.

Maybe it’s time to fix that.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Future from a Rigged Past

Civilization is not dying from too much liberty. It is being choked to death by those who fear it.

The so-called moral and intellectual elites of our age do not trust the people they claim to lead. They believe freedom is dangerous. They see the public as too unrefined to wield power, too unpredictable to be left alone, and too selfish to be trusted with prosperity. To them, history is not a story of triumph through liberty, but a cautionary tale of what happens when control slips from their grasp.

They seek to re-centralize that control, replacing self-government with a new global aristocracy, and reducing the rest of us to economic serfs.

These elites see global population growth slowing and soon declining, but instead of allowing society to adapt through innovation and cooperation, they respond with fear. They fear that the developing world will develop. They fear that the poor will want energy. Most of all, they fear that liberty, extended to billions, will produce voices they cannot manage and aspirations they cannot suppress.

That, they believe, must never be allowed.

Crisis is the tool they use to remake the world.

They promote mass migration, not out of compassion, but to dissolve the social contracts that hold nations together. They weaponize foreign aid through NGOs, funneling billions into efforts that undermine borders and erode sovereignty. They support revolutions abroad not to spread democracy, but to spread chaos, and through it, to erase memory.

Memory is the enemy of control.

But there is a better way: a civilization rooted in liberty, that can expand without conquest, and endure without control.

The American system, when properly understood and constitutionally limited, is not a relic. It is the most scalable model of governance ever devised, involving sovereign states, free to govern themselves, united in mutual defense, and bound by a shared respect for the inalienable rights of the individual.

This is not just a republic. It is a blueprint for civilization.

What stands in the way is not culture, language, or geography. It is the cancer of centralized power. If we can excise that cancer and return the federal government to its proper role, we can build something vast, resilient, and free.

And we can offer other like-minded nations to join.

If the United States falls, it will not be because of foreign conquest or economic miscalculation. It will be because we abandoned our first principles, and that began not with malice, but with a lie.

That lie was Social Security, a program sold as earned but built on intergenerational debt, with a slush fund designed to bankroll the New Deal and tether Americans to a promise that could never be kept.

Social Security was the seed of dependence, and the first domino in a long chain of engineered crises.

We can no longer afford to pretend that lie was harmless. We are living in its aftermath.

It is time to tell the truth, and to build again.