Made possible by the abundance of land available, America’s European founding stock sought denominational freedom in the New World. Entire congregations of Christians traveled across the Atlantic Ocean on ships such as the Mayflower to establish colonies that were closely tied to their religious beliefs, as well as the customs and farming practices of their homelands. However, even within the same denomination, different settlements had varying interpretations of the Bible and differing practices. For example, the Puritans in Boston were different from those in Plymouth Colony, Salem, and Connecticut. Furthermore, if a minority group became dissatisfied with the way a township was run, they would break off and establish a new town where they could live according to their beliefs.
A quotation from localhistories.org reads: The Puritans hoped to create a ‘city on a hill’ i.e. a shining example of a Godly society for the entire world to see. Instead, they created a society just as intolerant as the one they had left. The Puritans went to America fleeing religious persecution but they, in turn, persecuted the Quakers who they called a ‘cursed sect’.
The author of this source argues that this form of religious intolerance is hypocrisy. They claim that the freedom to practice religion in America did not necessarily extend to all religions, such as Quakerism in Boston. However, ultimately the Quakers were free to practice their religion in Pennsylvania. In this way, the American tradition is characterized not by a “melting pot” but by self-determination not only for individuals but also for groups. In modern times there is no longer an abundance of affordable land to which dissatisfied groups can retreat. Moreover, the differences between the various groups in contemporary America are considerably more significant than those between two sects of the same religion.
America's sprawling urban landscapes serve as monuments of concrete and steel to one simple fact; That we simply do not want to live near one another. Nonetheless, this is a fact that 20th-century Culture Distorters painstakingly ignored as they conducted their Progressive social experiments of unprecedented scale. Dissent to these experiments was pathologized and the urban communities of European Americans were torn apart. As consolation, we were relocated, more accurately, confined to suburbia—an artificial environment lacking infrastructure essential to community building. Expansion of the welfare state and advancements in transportation and communication technologies further compounded this assault. This has led to the erosion of the very foundations of humanity itself: our social fabric, cultural heritage, and communal responsibilities. As a consequence, atomization became the prevailing norm, with individualistic ideologies filling the void.
In the past, towns and the landscapes they inhabited served as crucial vessels for the embodiment of social values. They constituted tangible, communal spaces that nurtured culture and fostered trust among their inhabitants. Even more significantly, the community within a town was analogous to a living organism, performing functions as essential as blood circulation, blinking, and breathing. However, the prevailing trends of individualism, as previously mentioned, have led us to overlook our innate ability to perform these vital functions instinctively. Going forward, what used to occur naturally must now be carried out deliberately.
Our first inquiry into community building is to simply ask who belongs and who doesn’t. We are not off to a very good start, unfortunately, as in most cases asking this question has been made illegal. Nevertheless, the truth remains: communities that cannot establish their own boundaries and criteria for membership can hardly be called communities at all. The town provides an easily understood and noncontroversial boundary in terms of land as well as people. For purposes such as our own, towns that boast a cultural and historical significance, a traditional Main Street, and a largely homogeneous demographic are ideal. Further considerations should be had about the towns’ surrounding areas.
In any town, one can find distinctive ethnic characteristics that set its people apart from the broader population of the United States. Examples may include homeland, origin myth, folklore, ritual, archetype, calendar, dialect, style of dress, art, and cuisine. These qualities hold the potential to be amplified within the townspeople’s collective consciousness and serve as the basis for a new forward-looking culture. This new culture shall come to symbolize a super-organism, uniting all other organisms in the town together under a shared commitment to a particular people and place. The envisioned outcome is a conscious and deliberate process of ethnogenesis, an endeavor likely to span several decades. Ultimately, as architects of this local identity and managers of the network of the institutions that nurture it, we aim to assert sovereignty over the town.
Conventionally, a network is understood as a group of individuals and their respective enterprises. While this human element is indeed fundamental, the technical mechanisms that unify it are equally vital. Each mechanism serves a distinct function while also contributing to the network as a whole. When the functions of these mechanisms harmonize with the organic functions of the community, there is an opportunity for rehabilitation. When overseen by a culture-bearing elite, the function of these mechanisms guarantees that the revitalization of the community aligns with the essence of the town's ethnic heritage.
One mechanism worth exploring is borrowed from the tech industry, notably exemplified by the practices of Apple. Referred to as a “walled garden” this mechanism has been instrumental in the creation of not only a community but an identity around Apple’s products. Apple products are user-friendly, seamlessly integrated with one another, and are intentionally limited in their compatibility with nonApple products. Consequently, these measures actively encourage customers to remain within the Apple ecosystem, fostering brand loyalty and driving continual product purchases.
Another mechanism is the brand itself, which allows users to identify the various products within the ecosystem. Under a loose definition of the term, one brand worth addressing at a local level is the brand of the college credential. As attendance at liberal universities increasingly becomes associated with debt slavery there is a growing call for an alternative solution. Nonetheless, the intricate and demanding procedure of establishing a credentialed university poses a significant bureaucratic hurdle. Thus the goal is not merely to establish yet another university, but rather to create an entirely new ecosystem. Consequently, the ability to confer a conventional university credential becomes entirely irrelevant. Instead, the focus shifts to cultivating a network of local employers who value an alternative credential over those provided by conventional state universities. Moreover, the proprietary nature of this credential serves as an inhibitor to brain drain, as recipients find themselves ineligible for employment outside of the local area. At the same time, this newly established institution and network serves as a vehicle for enculturation and sovereign decision-making.
Compared to online networks, which disperse their efforts across a vast digital landscape, local networks benefit from close proximity and relative homogeneity, thereby concentrating their objectives and impact. The fundamental problem with our online networks lies in the fact that they were created for the online dissident, not for the local man. Despite best intentions, this factor renders them insular and limited in their outreach effects.
One commendable online crusade has been the campaign against processed foods and seed oils. While many of us are undoubtedly familiar with the detrimental impacts of consuming processed foods, avoiding them is nearly impossible without vigilant and conscious effort. At a local level, this need for individual effort can be alleviated by mechanisms that influence consumer habits. Three of these mechanisms are food grading, cultural dietary restrictions, and place of purchase.
Currently, food grading is handled by some three-letter federal agency which likely jettisoned much of its credibility during Covid. The establishment of a local food grading agency would represent an appeal to science and provide the authority to provide health recommendations. Another mechanism is cultural dietary restrictions, such as kosher and halal. While these restrictions are self-imposed, at least in America, the understanding of them is fairly ubiquitous, particularly among shop owners who wish to appeal to such customers. This often manifests in the form of a sticker displayed on the door, indicating compliance with these restrictions. The third mechanism is place of purchase. It is unfortunate that in most places of this country, the detestable big box store has become the primary program for the grocery store. Earlier, I had mentioned the desirability of a town’s traditional main street. One reason is due to its human scale and its ability to better facilitate the sort of social serendipity typical of small-town life. Another desirable place is the farmer’s market. Unfortunately, unlike in Europe, the market square is not a common feature in towns and cities across this country.
With success over issues such as parental rights, abortion, and even Brexit across the pond, it has become evident that the single-issue organization is a more effective model compared to the big-tent approach. For this reason, the intuitions and mechanisms designed to handle food should differ from those dealing with academic matters. Although these two examples are relatively uncontroversial, organizations around other issues such as drug use and environmentalism pose greater contention. Knowledge of the network behind these various initiatives and its overarching objective of ethnogenesis must be reserved for the highest level of organization with the existence of such a network considered to be conspiratorial. By compartmentalizing initiatives, we not only conceal our influence but also render them more appealing to townspeople and investors who may or may not agree with the broader agenda. As power levels increase these institutions may gradually converge and the spirit which guides them becomes more salient.
The proposed transformative process outlined in this speech embodies a forward-looking perspective, aiming to evoke and preserve the historical memory of both a community and its sense of place. At this present moment, I recognize the formation of networks such as Basket-weaving, The Old Glory Club, and Beowulf as the most promising developments within our sphere and, indeed, on the broader right. The reality is, however, that these networks were created for the online dissident, not for the local man. I believe that graduating from this intellectual sphere and wholeheartedly immersing ourselves in our individual local communities marks the next crucial step, enabling us to concentrate our efforts and establish physical spaces conducive to traditional ways of life.