Front

The Distributed Freedom City Concept

Bill Collier July 19, 2021

We are casting a vision for the future in which people can build distributed freedom cities as private developments and subscriber-based networks within an area. People who love freedom, want success and prosperity, and desire to fulfill their own dreams, need a way to connect and collaborate in a larger area network of relationships and associations.

Together, these networks and nodes basically resemble the emergence of a large city that is self-contained, self-sustaining, and comprehensive in its scope of services and resources. It is a city distributed within and among all the communities of a specific area but that, despite being distributed, is for all that still a fully functional city serving its netizens, online-based subscribers, and the public.

The Freedomist is all about unilateral actions to promote real freedom and prosperity that leaves nobody in any demographic or community behind. The distributed freedom city concept takes the idea of a privately developed free city, as if it was an entire city created intentionally on freedom building principles and ideals, and distributes it throughout an area in the form of a digital platform and distributed facilities where its netizens can gather and access activities, social events, services, and resources.

Instead of one city in one single place, parts of the city, as facilities that provide services or even clustered housing developments affiliated with this virtual city are distributed all over, here and there. Parts of the distributed city, in the form of physical facilities and hubs, exist here and there in every village, township, town, county, or other municipality in its service area. The netizens include eResidents, eCitizens, Freeholders, Ecclesians, Peers, Electors, and Nobles, which are different types of subscriptions based on freewill participation. These netizens of the “virtual-to-local” distributed city live throughout the area, some in clustered housing affiliated with the virtual city and most wherever they already lived before the city came into existence.

What does the city offer? Through an economy of some scale, pooling of resources, and the ability to connect thousands of people for mutual benefit and profit, the city could meet most basic human needs of its netizens (what all the different subscribers are called) and ensure the protection of their rights, persons, and property from all harm. This is mostly through legal aid, practical mutual assurance among members, clubs that meet different needs, including a safety and home security cooperative, lobbying governments, viting en bloc, and a strong media presence and web presence.

While our distributed cities may be owned/developed and managed by a local chapter organization of our society, as the administrator, they will serve a broad and pluralistic community of freedom builders and freedom seekers. This is the private city concept wherein the administrators serve the netizens as clients and customers whose free market demands form the basis of a truly democratic feedback loop. The city serves its netizens, not the other way around, or it goes bankrupt.

A freedom city is a city ruled by the Bill of Rights and the core ideas and principles of freedom for all with a strong foundation of virtue, liberty, and independence. A distributed freedom city is basically a virtual-to-local community of people within a larger area who act in harmony to build freedom for themselves and for others.

In our terminology we call these Upo Shires, using the term shire from the Middle Ages to denote an area that is within a larger Duchy or Kingdom but which is also more or less self-reliant and self-governing as well self-sustaining. The term Upo denotes the fact these distributed cities would adhere to the UPDR ideals of governance, among other concepts and practices. In old England a Shire was equivalent to a County, more or less, so we often use the term Freedom Shires to describe a County wherein most to all local officials adhere to the spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights as the highest law and standard of the land.

But a Upo Shire as a distributed freedom city isn’t a County, it is a virtual-to-local community that resembles a freedom shire, only it’s private and being part of it as a netizen of any kind is strictly based on freewill participation. Imagine a service area for a Upo Shire, as a distributed virtual-to-local “city”, including around 12 or so Counties. Imagine then a new county was formed, based on a city, with its own name and identity, only instead of being in one place, parts of it, from its facilities and core infrastructure to its people, are placed within each of the constituent communities within all of the Counties.

Conceptually this can be difficult to fathom. The reader who thinks maybe this is a literal physical city or that it is just a virtual or imagined city without substance would be understandably confused. Our concept is different than those but also somewhat like those cities. We ensuing a city that is is planned, like most cities, albeit in stages and phases, with various types and levels of both virtual and physical developments arising both from the city planners and administrators on one hand and private initiative by netizens and constituent entities or subdivisions on the other hand.

Above is an illustration of service area for a distributed Upo City, with buildings, hubs, and netizens distributed throughout a larger area that includes all or parts of 20 some counties and more than 700,000 people.

Setting up the virtual space and holding local gatherings to impart the vision, gather city-builders and leaders, and creating a master development plan to guide both virtual and physical developments is the first major stage of development for such a distributed private city. In our case, we will gather people through an international platform called “The Virtual Commonwealth of Upadaria” (VCU) and, from those who become Peers of our international society, a core area chapter organization will emerge which will take on the city-building responsibilities.

As with everything we share, your idea of a virtual-to-local distributed city may differ from ours, and in a given area just as there are multiple physical cities, there may be multiple distributed private cities, although one hopes these multiple private cities, if they are freedom cities at heart, will cooperate and collaborate with one another.

These distributed private cities are real things, as we envision them: they will have some sort of city-center or hub, perhaps the size of large village, and multiple smaller hubs, little villages, all over as well as various facilities to serve their netizens. The city, as an incorporated entity, will own land and property. In our case, the lands are owned by a land trust operated by an area chapter organization for our mutual benefit, missions, and refugee support society, which local chapter acts as the private developer and administrator of the city.

We envision the proliferation of multiple distributed free cities, even in one area, as a step toward creating permanent and robust alternative institutions that protect the rights, persons, and property of their netizens, advance a free market, and grow prosperity.

As noted, and to reiterate, a key aspect of a private city is that it’s not a democracy, it’s basically a private entity that has clients, the netizens, who use the power of association and how they spend their money to give ongoing feedback within a free market environment. This is a perfect democracy: the consensus of the clients is always dynamically shared with the provider who either serves their needs or faces a loss of netizen subscribers.

Your version of a distributed freedom city may be more like a traditional city in its governance. Our version does have a governance structure and indeed a city government, but real ownership of assets isn’t democratic in the classic sense, it is the pure democracy of the free market.

The city itself starts as a sub-network within the virtual platform of Upadaria, but its physical aspects include an area chapter community of our society, a land trust, mutual benefit corporations, clubs, and other entities chartered and/or licensed by the area chapter organization.

The deliberate creation of these distributed freedom cities, whether or not it is through the Upadaria Platform as a catalyst and a local society chapter as the project developer, is the next evolution in the cause of advancing freedom for all that leaves nobody behind.

MEDICAL FREEDOM- Doctor Becomes Patient Rights Activist

Bill Collier July 18, 2021

Health coverage is expensive, but medical care isn’t? How is this and what can we do?

Dr. Marion Mass went through a metamorphosis from a physician to a patient rights advocate when she saw how money and politics, not patient needs, were adding multiple layers of complication and costs without benefiting patients. Her story and recent podcast transcends partisan labels and is a fresh way to approach medical care instead of playing politics with “health care” that may provide “coverage” but is too expensive and doesn’t serve patient needs.

Dr. Marion Mass joins other doctors in a PODCAST where this is all explored in depth.

The cartoon above is a simple story about the evolution of a doctor into a patient’s rights activist.

Dr. Mass serves as the vice-chairman of Practicing Physicians of America whose mission includes protecting the ability of all practicing physicians to serve as their patients’ primary health care advocate and to confront unnecessary and overbearing regulation that limits any physicians’ ability to serve their patients.

See more about this below:

How Health Care #Middlemen are:
Emptying America’s pockets,
Replacing physicians
What you can do.

Give 🇺🇸 transparency
Had so much fun on this podcast! ❤️

Kudos @notaproviderMD and @GallaherCaren
https://t.co/nHCEgaaAuI

Drs. Nikki Johnson, Caren Gallaher, and Marion Mass expose the truth about medication and device rebates and how this ties in to increasing healthcare costs and unsafe patient care. We give you actionable items to advocate for yourself and demand transparency.

Visit https://practicingphysician.org /, https://physiciansforpatientsofficial.org /, and https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org / to learn more.

Housing Freedom and The Family Freehold

Bill Collier July 18, 2021

The steep cost of housing and a system of regulation that adds needless burdens while perpetuating non-sustainable designs over more autonomous housing designs are denying Americans fair access to housing freedom and an unencumbered family freehold.

What is housing freedom? Quite simply it is housing that is affordable and that enhances one’s personal freedom because it contains elements of food and energy freedom as well, which basically means you can produce your own food and energy without the need for external help beyond a local freewill participatory association of some kind.

A family freehold is the core property, including real estate, that is needed to sustain a family at an higher material level commensurate with an advanced modern society. To be unencumbered means it is affordable to own outright without debt, it isn’t regulated beyond absolute necessity, and it isn’t taxed.

Every American and every American family, regardless of demographic background or location, deserves afford, quality, spacious, and self-sustaining housing that enhances their quality of life, wealth, and freedom! We call this a family freehold.

Basically, the freehold is what we have in mind as the ideal for all Americans to become as materially autonomous and self-sustaining as possible so that little government control is needed and so that mega corporations cannot gain absolute monopoly power over all aspects of our culture and society.

We are seeing a housing crisis emerge, especially for younger people, that would make everyone debtors to banks, slaves to the tax collectors, and materially dependent upon government and monopolistic corporations just to survive. This is truly the front line of the battle to defeat the freedom takers and liberate the people from their exploitation and control.

While legal reform at all levels is needed and sought by Freedomists, unilateral actions and tools are also envisioned, as well as public pressure campaigns against exploitation and consumer fraud. The goal is to make it feasible for young couples, or anyone, to find and purchase their own family freehold at an affordable price and for that freehold to be quality, sustainable, and beneficial to their lives.

The perpetuation of the people cannot happen outside of a high birth rate which requires the presence of mothers and fathers who raise their own biological or adopted children together in a loving home. This isn’t an appeal to a law requiring this of anyone, it’s an observation of historical lessons which show that the devolution of family from extended families to atomized individuals doesn’t bode well for any society.

The family freehold, whether alone or, as we may recommend for saving money and pooling resources, some form of shared estate or villa (a Freehold Villa), is an affordable, quality, dwelling that has within it some of the elements that lead to food and energy freedom as well.

The problem with housing today is speculation coupled with regulations and taxes that work together to produce mammoth costs both in terms of building and the final price. The local government is incentivized to keep property “values” high in order to extract more tax revenue, so it cannot even begin to address the problem of rising prices because it benefits from that!

Some ideas we have include things like housing clubs that would help a group of people building homes save on materials while providing legal protection and local lobbying to deal with outmoded regulations and codes. Other ideas include the freehold villa and the creation of local credit unions to secure low-cost financing that is reasonable and fair.

We have to find and use gaps for freedom within existing laws and then push the boundaries of those gaps for freedom until the legal, regulatory, business, and economic ecosystem tends to produce equitable and accessible opportunities for all Americans to obtain a family freehold of their own at an affordable price.

Housing freedom itself isn’t a right, but access to obtain housing freedom through your own effort or in collaboration with others must be considered a right.

Nobody who is willing to work and invest in themselves should find obtaining housing freedom is beyond their reach in an advanced society.

Shifting Power To Free Local Communities

Bill Collier July 18, 2021

The Freedomist Town Meeting System will shift power at the local level to the people and eventually shift power from the federal center to the individual , the family, and both freewill participatory associations and the local community.

At the very local level, Thomas Jefferson proposed a “ward republic” where the citizens gathered in a town meeting and, through open and free debate, chose their local rules and the such via direct democratic votes. This idea has had more modern layers added such as a consensual decision-making processes that goes well beyond mere democracy and prevents the abuse of the minority.

Our present systems of government at the very local to county level are not set up this way plus anything beneath the state level is just a subdivision of the state without any real autonomy. The concept of a Union of 50 states hasn’t made the logical leap that counties are combinations of locales as the primary constituent entity and states are federations of their counties, which ought to be the primary political powers in each state.

The radical, in a good way, devolution of power from the center to the provinces, from the top to the base of society, and from federal and state to county and locality, hasn’t occurred. Instead, power went from the states to a bloated and increasingly authoritarian federal power high on its hubris and a slave to its corporate masters.

The response we propose for Freedomists at the local level is to both find gaps for freedom and institute a unilateral Freedomist Town Meeting system at the very local to the county level.

Freedomists will gather first to form Teams of 5-10 people who plan and organize the local effort to develop a Freedomist Town Meeting by conducting educational outreach, canvassing, creating a people-powered free press, and activism aimed at gaining voters who sign the Freedomist Pledge.

The gist of the town meetings system is Freedomists and citizens who sign a Freedomist Pledge gather in a town meeting of their own to pass Resolves and Remonstrances as well as Instructions to their elected officials.

Freedomists work to gain a majority of local voters who sign a Freedomist Pledge to only vote for candidates who offer a tangible defense of the Bill of Rights according to the original spirit and intent and interpretations that are most generous to individual liberty. These electors gather online and/or on person to conduct a consensual decision-making process to review acts by local officials and people who have a public trust (including the press) and then issue Resolves to express their will and desire, Remonstrances to address issues of concern, and Instructions as to how that official or governing body or person who has a public trust should act.

The Freedomist Town Meeting then publishes and distributes its acts and findings to the public and works to ensure all those who tend to defy its acts face things like boycotts, peaceful protests, votes against them, or even recall efforts. The consequences for ignoring a Town Meeting become burdensome on the offenders.

A Town Meeting would also vett candidates and officials and may elect to vote “en bloc” whereby all members agree that in such a scenario they will all vote the same way. Voting en bloc would even give a local to county Freedomist Town Meeting leverage where it doesn’t yet have a majority of voters who have taken the Pledge.

The Freedomist Town Meeting sets up a vehicle for power that actually empowers average freedom-loving people and makes them, as a whole, a rather tough target for the freedom takers. Through this, there is a de facto mirror popular self-governance structure to the local government which has a real and legitimate means of exerting its influence in a manner the local officials and people who hold a public trust cannot easily ignore.

The details you can find as you stay tuned to The Freedomist, we always have new ideas and content for the freedom builder meant to give insights and direction that enable you to expand the influence of freedom based on virtue, liberty, and independence at the local level.

Our aim is to see faith, family, and community, on a strictly freewill participation basis, become the driving force for change and renewal throughout all of this country, in every locale and among every demographic group. Our aim is to effect, through practical acts, the transfer of wealth and power back to individuals, families, communities of trust based on freewill participation, and locales governed at least on a de facto basis as united popular democratic republics (UPDR Communities), and states as the primary political sovereignty of scale which are themselves unions of counties.

As for America, our long-term goal is to see this land become a truly free, prosperous, and pluralistic society of equals with maximum sovereignty at the lowest levels. Our country would become a grand Commonwealth of Freedom with prosperity, liberty, and justice for all through the protection of every citizen’s right to life, liberty, and property.

Every community in this country, regardless of its demographic makeup or socioeconomic situation, deserves to become a consensual democratic republic with freedom based on virtue, liberty, and independence as its standard.

Our approach is to build the mirror governance structure unilaterally with whomever wishes to become a Freedomist and strive to both build freedom in their own lives and in their own locale as the basis of a statewide to countrywide effort to firmly place freedom based on virtue, liberty, and independence at the pinnacle of American governance and jurisprudence.

The Freedomist Town Meeting is the first step toward American renewal and advancement that will move us out of the past and beyond an authoritarian present into a glorious future of fulfillment and happiness that leaves no American behind. Until every American of every demographic background and socioeconomic status in every single place everywhere in this country can experience the benefits of freedom based on virtue, liberty, and independence, our work is not done.

Our guding light for this countrywide campaign is “leave no American behind!”

The Town Meeting System is important because it will effect a real local transfer of power from the local ruling class to the average person in a way nothing else can do. Eventually, as we gain influence in every state, our intention is to codify a local united popular democratic republic as the core constituent entity of every state and the highest political sovereignty within each state.

If there must be a state as magistrate and protector of the rights, persons, and property of all its citizens, then let it become a diverse and decentralized Commonwealth of Freedom that leaves no citizen behind.

Using a Town Meeting System every locale can be won for the People and real power can devolve back to them as it should have always been. No locality that stays within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights in their original spirit and intent, with the most generous interpretation favoring individual rights, should be dictated to by any greater power and all political authority should be deemd to flow from these local UPDR Communities to the other larger combines such as counties as Freedom Shires, states as Freedom Commonwealths, and our whole Union of Freedom Commonwealths.

That’s the big vision and we may be a few generations from achieving that vision. But the Freedomist Town Meeting System is something you can embrace and pursue with some realistic possibility of success within a few years of hard and disciplined work.

FOOD FREEDOM: A Local Farm-Fresh Food Buying Club

Bill Collier July 18, 2021

Food freedom, or food independence, is another way to both get out from under the influence and control of the ruling class and create a more sustainable and earth-friendly future. The basic approach is a group of around 100 or so people come together and form a Food Freedom Club that provides locally produced food from farmers to club members.

A few thoughts are that the club either finds a member or recruits/hires an expert to handle the administration and this person arranges to find both local providers of food (meat or plant-based food) as well as local processors, with an emphasis on those who use sustainable processes and renewable resources. The marriage between farmers and food processors is important. Additionally, the club would use the Victory Garden idea wherein members combine expertise, land, and labor to produce whatever can be raised or grown by them on their own properties.

The goal is for the club to be able to produce enough food for members to meet their basic nutrition needs with 80% or more via renewable and sustainable resources.

Food freedom is as vital as voting, in fact it’s far more important, and, if pursued, would lead to tremendous results for all concerned.

After getting all that food, what could be better than having a large common meal with participants to celebrate your food freedom and perhaps invite some folks who aren’t as well off as you.

Food freedom is not a about politics. It is about not being controlled, it is about building a sustainable future, and it is about community connections that are warm and caring.

Statement On The White House’s Misinformation Bogeyman

Bill Collier July 17, 2021

Publisher, Bill Collier- People who spread misinformation are a bane to our existence, especially when they do so knowingly and also when they don’t do the basic due diligence necessary to screen out ridiculous claims. The problem is that the definition of misinformation, like other bogeyman fears being used to perpetuate authoritarianism, gets all too broad and the response becomes both immediately draconian, canceling the malefactors from the digital commons, and unforgiving, never giving a path to redemption or rehabilitation.

Democrats have more concern for rehabilitating gangs and criminals than they do for people who they deem worthy of digital banishment within a society whose best opportunities and social activities exist mostly within and through the digital commons.

The digital commons is, like it or not, essential to equal opportunity and prosperity in our society and banishing people from this commons for anything less than absolutely criminal conduct, and banishing them for life, deprives them of equal access to all this society offers. It should be considered very seriously and with hesitation and no longer be treated as just removing someone from a private space and not a big deal. This old civilization with its latter-days authoritarianism (so typical of old civilizations) is literally creating the disaffected “internal proletariat” whose ideas and philosophy become the basis of a new civilizational paradigm.

The latest gambit by yet about President to resort to fear-mongering and broad generalizations in order to throttle discourse, wherein platforms are being nudged by government to do what it cannot do and ruin the lives of people whose speech the Democrats (in this case) don’t fancy, is likely to be nuked from orbit by the courts. Making a private entity an agent of a government policy that seeks to punish, albeit not through legal means, anyone they deem to be spreading misinformation is not going to survive many court proceedings.

What is more, the creators of a new web 3.0 digital commons are bound to look askance at any government telling them and their digital communities who to banish! Within 20 years, we predict, all those platforms that “cooperate” in digital banishment for too weak a cause will be left behind in the coming digital age. Digital communities with maximum participatory self-governance and fraternal connections as their basis will eventually, slowly but surely, replace platforms as the new digital commons.

The national pastime of labeling everything you and your Party disagree with “misinformation” is too well established for most fair-minded people to think anyone, including a privately owned platform, is standing on strong moral ground when they arbitrarily label content disinformation and use it to do real social and economic harm to people through banishment from the digital commons.

Even if we agree a private platform has great latitude in who it banishes, this doesn’t mean we think their trigger-happy approach to banishment using opaque standards that cannot be consistently applied with rigor is a good idea morally or for the long-term health of the platform. We certainly think it is a good idea to view any “collaboration” between massive, near-monopoly platforms where the digital commons mostly exists (and outside of which individuals will increasingly face a reduction in opportunities and social connections), with grave concern.

Not all cooperation is bad. But too much can blur the line between state and platform in such a way that an essentially private digital commons is de facto, even if not de jure, molded by a state controlled by a Party with strong authoritarian leanings.

It is true, actual misinformation can harm people. If you put it out there that everyone from one demographic are a hazard to justice or equity or anything, when that’s a gross exaggeration or generalization, that’s misinformation. It’s wrong. It should be called out and confronted and if a direct link between the propagation of that misinformation and real harm to other can be proven, then criminal persecution isn’t off the table. A tort has occurred.

People saying patently false and provably inaccurate things that cause harm to others, where a direct link can be proven, should face consequences, including civil lawsuits.

But we know Democrats today, and it could be Republicans tomorrow, tend to paint a rather broad stroke when they invoke the accusation of misinformation. This is the reason why one Jen Psaki, the Press Secretary, doubling down on the government “working with” (pressuring) platforms to banish people from the digital commons for anything the White House deems “misinformation” is such a hyperbolic non-starter.

The otherwise charming and adroit Press Secretary has clearly become divorced from that strong American tradition of tolerance: e.g. “I might not like or agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

The Press Secretary could have clearly stated that if people are illegally spreading falsehoods to gain profit (and clicks are profit) that are harming people that the government urges platforms to be proactive in flagging that. But we know that talk of the possibility a certain virus had its genesis in a lab in China became prima facae evidence of misinformation that was banishable! Now that theory is revived and is not misinformation. Sadly, those already banished for stating that theory remain banished.

The administration has a few hobby horses such as “muh white supremacy” and racism, the election, the January 6th “insurrection”, climate change, and the virus all of which include some degree of accusing anyone who disagrees of “misinformation.” It is therefore a bad faith claim to say that the spirit behind such nonsensical and untenable rhetoric about banishing people for misinformation is at all about public safety.

We would perhaps be more worried if this wasn’t just more rhetorical flash to appease the authoritarian base of the Democratic Party and if it wasn’t so laughably untenable both from a legal and public support perspective. We would not be surprised to find such “collaboration” is anything more than happy talk and that no real collaboration is happening.

The public aren’t ready to let Jen Psaki, or even Donald Trump, become the arbiter of what is or isn’t misinformation and the trend toward banishment from the digital commons is going to boomerang “bigly” on the technocrats and their Democratic Party pals. Web 3.0, the digital commons built around diverse digital communities within a decentralized but compatible ecosystem, is coming and it couldn’t come soon enough.

Everyone Needs A “Tribe”

Bill Collier July 17, 2021

We live in a topsy-turvy world. Compared to just 20 years ago, the amount of small to serious incidents of uncertainty and chaos we might experience has seemed to rise. Things like “prepping” have become mainstream and most of us have experienced some sort of privation due to recent global events, including lockdowns and sudden supply distributions or rising costs.

Tribes may provide us a clue as to how to manage this.

Tribes are extended kinships that nurture the individual without smuggling them. They balance the need for individual spiritual sovereignty with the need for warm and connected bonds that help make us more human and more humane.

The insanity of the hour and the deprivations don’t have to spell the end of the world to have a major inpact. It’s not likely to get better and the hits are going to keep coming. Most of us, mostly alone, are not prepared to handle such things with our wits and resources.

For anyone who isn’t independently wealthy and well-connected with lots of friends and family, the prospects for weathering a repeat or a more dramatic version of recent events isn’t that awesome. We literally recommend striving to become independently wealthy and well connected with lots of friends and family and, within the Upadaria Project we will aim, in part, to facilitate this for as many people as we can.

But even if you do acheive this, or if you are on the road thereto, having a tribe of people connected to your life at the personal level and through larger-scale networking possibilities is going to be vital to maintaining your convictions and values in relative peace and happiness while being materially well situated.

Building tribes is going to become a necessity. You will either build one with your own friends and family and then invite others to join in a network of such clusters of people or you will have to find and join one.

A tribe is a body of people who have a kinship bond, even if they aren’t related by blood, that connects them to each other in such a way that the well-being of each participant is of equal value to every other participant.

You may have multiple tribes, like people in your religious denomination, people of the same sociocultural background or ethnicity even, your extended family if it is close-knit, people you went to school with or fellow veterans, people in your profession, and the like.

But we foresee and are partly inspired by the idea that tribes are likely to become more important and more formal. The need to protect your sociocultural values from being a liability in a society that defies and demeans those values will require a more robust approach to having a larger support network for mutual profit and benefit.

Basically, if you have a large enough tribe of people who deeply share your sociocultural values you will have economic and business connections who will sustain each other even in the face of the cancel culture authoritarians who want to punish anyone who isn’t willing to change their values to meet the woke totalitarians’ demands.

Tribes as we are using this term are sociocultural and socioeconomic networks of people who connect and bond at the level of identity based on shared values. They have a common name/identity that represents their shared values and bond so that whenever they meet anyone who shares that name/identity, they know to prefer them and that they share their core values.

You cannot hope to endure these times of uncertainty and all these crises without a tribe of your own. Otherwise you will be easy prey to the cancel culture authoritarians and their woke totalitarian agenda.

Another form of tribe is our concept of a spiritual nation of people whose God is the Lord. This is definitely outside the immediate life-experience of most Americans who may equate things like race or citizenship to nationhood. We don’t mean those things. A spiritual nation is a larger tribal/kinship bond with a common identity based on shared beliefs, values, and convictions as expressed in ideals, principles, practices, and mandates that connects people through freewill participation.

The nearest equivalent we have to express this concept in a way you might understand is a fraternal benefit society or fraternal order, only with more of an emphasis on mutual self-reliance and self-sufficiency as well as maximum material independency from the agents of influence and control in an godless culture.

Our “tribe” is more formal, albeit not excessively so. It is based on 17 Protocols voluntarily adopted and used in mutual support for each participant to approach more and more degrees of independence and self-sufficient. But we are certain our cocnept and implementation of some form of tribal community of people, connecting online and clustering in person, will be more reflective of the norm in the future, especially for those whose values are virtually proscribed by society at large.

Whether you find your tribe through the Upadaria Project or not, the basic idea is to be very deliberate about engaging in connections that can scale to hundreds or more people that become your social safety net, your natural market, and your support system. Through our platform and other genesis structures, people will have a more convenient and accessible opportunity to be part of a tribe of people from around the world whose ideals, principles, and practices harmonize with their own values and facilitate greater levels of material prosperity and independence for themselves.

In a culture whose sociocultural and socioeconomic, not to mention political, structures are run by and for a ruling class who despise our Judeo-Christian morals and traditions, being part of some kind of tribe based on those morals and traditions is the only way to personally endure and to preserve those morals and traditions for future generations.

European Floods Become New Justification For Climate Change Authoritarianism

Bill Collier July 17, 2021

By Bill Collier- Flooding in Europe is the new excuse for climate change authoritarianism. As people hope to rebuild their lives, the EU and other governments in Europe are focused less on people’s needs and more on new ways to impoverish them and reduce their freedom.

Citing the “obvious” connection between massive rainfall and hotter climate, once again climate change authoritarianism is asserting itself before the dead and wounded can even be sorted out in a major disaster. The speed with which any event, be it rain or draught, hot or cold temperatures, is blamed on climate change, coupled with more calls for yet more authoritarian responses, far outpaces the speed of recovery from such events.

Journalists, ideologically drawn to authoritarianism as most are thanks to their poor educations in schools of journalism, unquestionably repeat every claim without seriously questioning why the climate change theory, unlike other scientific theories, presents anything that would disprove itself. In short, everything that happens unpleasant is counted to the same cause without question.

Meanwhile, over 1300 people are missing and over 125 dead in a torrential outburst that dumped some two months worth of rain in 24 hours over mostly northwest Germany and parts of Holland and Belgium. Flooding in other areas, ranging from Switzerland to areas in northern and eastern Germany was also reported. The floods in western Germany were particularly dangerous because they came suddenly with walls of water pouring through towns and villages, in some cases collapses houses or simply tearing through them.

German Minister of the Environment Svenja Schulze announced, “These are the harbingers of climate change that have now arrived in Germany.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the flooding “a clear indication of climate change” and “something that really, really shows the urgency to act.”

The EU is busy promoting rather draconian and authoritarian measures to allegedly mitigate climate change, such as literally banning all but electric cars within 20 years, a shocking move that would lead to economic devastation but also render the population less mobile and more controllable.

Serious proposals focused on house portable and house affordable energy, loosening zoning and codes rules to allow for more sustainable building technologies and for home-based hydroponics, gardens, and graywater recycling, for instance, are off the table. The entire focus is on more authoritarian and draconian measures that create a One Big System (OBS) approach wherein 100% of the cost and loss of freedom falls on working people without impacting the ruling class.

The propensity of “climate scientists” to regularly and shamelessly don the mien of totalitarian ideologues is most certainly one of the chief reasons many view their preachments with suspicion. For the German government to, at this very hour, leap to conclusions simply because it serves their increasingly authoritarian agenda, is a gross disservice to victims of this flooding.

The issue is less about whether we need to reduce polluting emissions that can harm the environment and lead to climate change and more about the fact every proposed solution impoverishes billions of souls and reduces their freedom while, at the same time, this theory brooks no dissent and offers no example where a prediction not happening or other unpredicted events happening would disprove it.

Climate change, like other hobgoblins, may have a basis of truth, but the problem lies in the oversimplification of its effects, in the exploitation of every disaster, in the authoritarian proposals for dealing with it, and with how it’s claims of proof know no bounds and are contradictory.

Impoverishment and totalitarianism won’t solve a changing climate, especially if the changes aren’t totally man-made. These measures will lead to societal instability and ruin without appreciably effecting outcomes but all to further increase the power and wealth of the ruling class.

Real solutions to mankind’s baneful impact on the planet are available and would increase individual wealth and freedom, because they would shift resources from OBS to the homes and communities controlled by average workaday people.

OUR THOUGHTS-

Most of those who claim to care about climate change offer only rather authoritarian responses which impoverish people, make them less free, and don’t make a dent on the climate itself. The truth is, they don’t care about the bogeyman they are using to scare you into submission, their objective is the radical global transformation of society into an authoritarian regimen ruled by the few at the grave expense of the many.

If you’re really serious about climate change, abandon OBS model and embrace a “house portable and house affordable” solution that seriously reduces negative impacts through human activities but also makes average people wealthier, more free, and healthier.

Free people from the many backwards and technology-suppressing rules, regulations, and “codes” that keep them from creating local food, energy, and housing independence through locally renewable resources. Invest in technology to advance food and energy independence at the level of the home primarily and the local neighborhood or town. Provide tax and regulatory waiver incentives to those seeking food and energy independence and sustainable home design.

The left authoritarians don’t propose these things, they propose draconian measures like banning all combustion engines and leaving people high and dry without affordable transportation or taxes and regulations that drive energy costs into the stratosphere. Their “solutions” are inhumane power grabs and massive wealth redistribution schemes that rob from the working class and feed the ruling class.

It’s hard to take climate change seriously when so many of those who bang the drum of alarm offer very non-serious proposals that truly read almost exclusively like a recipe for an authoritarian hellscape than an earth-friendly and humane approach to reducing humanity’s impact on the environment.

As for the Freedomist, we do not think all climate change is man-made or bad, but we do think the impact of human activity on the planet needs a serious rewrite. This begins with a strong emphasis on house-portable and house-affordable solutions, as opposed to OBS, that will make people more wealthy and free and devolve power from the top and center to individuals, families, and communities.

Enabling people to build affordable, sustainable housing and obtain food and energy independence at the very local level would dramatically reduce the environmental cost of human activity without threatening human flourishing.

The OBS approach won’t fix any problems, it will lead to instability, it decreases freedom and increases poverty, and, in the end, delays a truly effective response to a growing negative environmental and climate impact from human activity. None of the EU’s proposals do anything more than create a society of poor, working class cogs in the wheels of a neofeudal machine run by and for the ruling class at everyone’s expense but their own.

This Is Not How To Gain Acceptance of Vaccines

Bill Collier July 16, 2021

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the vaccine against this pandemic is perfectly fine. We may ignore the fact Israel is now issuing a third vaccine as the old one isn’t stopping the new varient. We can also ignore the whole fear of new varients that may render the first vaccine, which many reported gave miserable symptoms after injection of the second dose, useless. Also ignore the lack of longevity research possible for any new vaccine.

The authoritarian and arrogant way the Biden administration is handling this, almost as if it is a wedge issue designed to make Republicans look bad, has backfired. Far from being browbeat into submission, Americans are responding with suspicion and resistance.

The basic idea is, “if this is so good, why do you have to try to shame and bully me to do it?” What is more, while the vaccine is practically being forced on everyone, the accountability for negative side effects or long-term problems is gone. Nobody, from manufacturers to the government, accepts any responsibility if taking this proves, in the long-term, causes harm. And nobody can guarantee there won’t be any long-term negative effects.

The issue isn’t that the vaccine is available, the issue is threefold: people don’t like being bullied, people aren’t sure if this is useful against new varients or of its long-term effects, and nobody is on the hook if it doesn’t work or has ill effects.

The issues with the vaccine tend to be common with any new vaccine. And the need for vaccines means that new vaccines must be rolled out sooner rather than later. But it also means that every new vaccine has unresolved questions as to its efficacy or possible ill effects. The difference is in the fact nobody is willing to take responsibility if this doesn’t work or causes harm and yet you are being bullied and shamed and your concerns are being ridiculed in a partisan and over-the-top manner.

By showing such disrespect and condescension and using rabid partisan attack language against people who have concerns, while shifting 100% of the risk on the person being bullied into getting the shot, you make it harder, rather than easier, to say yes.

This seems to be the only default now for Democrats: bully, shame, and defame while belittling and ignoring legitimate debate and questions and suppressing discourse and scientific exploration outside their agenda of preconceptions. If the vaccine is going to help, which also requires accountability for manufacturers and government if they get this wrong, then the present hubris shown by proponents needs to end now.

Take away all the rabid language and bullying and add accountability if this doesn’t work, and our rate of vaccination would be much higher.

The old line “the beatings will stop when morale improves” is funny, but not when it’s the entire establishment beating down on anyone who has a concern, anyone who has questions, anyone who wants someone to take responsibility for this if it fails, and exploration of ongoing science as to alternatives.

Why Won’t Republicans Name and Confront Woke Communism?

Bill Collier July 16, 2021

Whether the term is woke communism or progressive authoritarianism, Republican leaders and top officials have consistently watered-down their talking points while every day Democrats lambast Republicans as Nazis, racists, phobes, and the like without even attempting any sense of honesty or civility.

Let’s stick with woke communists as our term. It’s a modern term, not coined by us per se, that describes what we also refer to as “neocomms”, new communists who have evolved into a Party-controlled duopoly of woke corporations with near monopoly power and the state. Unlike the Stalin model, these woke communists, woke because their use of racist and gender-bending “wokeness” as their cudgel, don’t want to destroy the corporations, they choose to harness them. And unlike the Chinese communists who use the state to control the corporations, the Democrats seem to prefer to have their totalitarian party control both the corporations and the state separately, at least for now.

The Republicans are having none of this. They know that if they lay this legitimate charge on their opponents, the DNC Press will viciously attack them with smears and slanders meant to destroy, or cancel, them from life. It’s an internal banishment that leaves you a broke pariah.

But without the courage to stand up now, when some legal protections for speech remain, these same Republicans are courting disaster as the march away from a Bill of Rights society toward authoritarianism continues. Their fecklessness and collaboration in the face of blatant authoritarianism and gross violence against the Bill of Rights by this totalitarian party becomes more and more inexcusable.

When will Republicans name and confront woke communism and expose the fact the Democratic Party has become wholly captured by this modern manifestation of totalitarianism?

The reaons run from fear to just wanting the trappings of office without the responsibility or the risk, to perhaps even having sympathy at least for the corporate side of the woke communist duopoly. The woke communist war on freedom is well documented and their rhetoric against all things decent and noble is also well known.

The ability of Republicans to stand up to, name, and confront woke communism for what it is and who it is should become a litmus test in every primary. If you won’t confront the woke communists, then you shouldn’t be in office.