In this present time when corrupt corpostate puppets rule over every major institution and all the corporate semi-monopolies, it is difficult to conceive of a way to protect yourself and your family from their lecherous overreach. But we must seek ways to do precisely that, to essentially create something like a modern version of cities of refuge, only at a small scale.

This begs a question: what are the legal structures and practical methods we can use to create our own mini cities of refuge, at the scale of, say, a dozen to a few hundred people, or more?

Let’s use a new term for these mini cities of refuge: a freedom hub. A freedom hub is any community of people and their land and infrastructure wherein the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights is protected and respected by all.

We don’t have to start by building whole cities, but if we build an international network based on this concept, we could have a base of support to build whole cities of refuge for freedom!

A Bill of Rights of Freedom Sanctuary is a local to state government that pledges to uphold the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights, or its equivalent, and to not in any way finance or cooperate with any official body or agency that doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights or its equivalent. That’s something we want to promote, but it is a local to regional, state, or provincial government resolving to be a Freedom Sanctuary.

A freedom hub is a private community designed around enabling its members to shelter as much of their life is possible from the corpostate’s overreach and that enables them to achieve mutual self-reliance without depending on the corpostate.

The corpostate is a simple term that means the combination of corporate and state monopolies of wealth, economic resources, and power in general. The line between the two is blurred and both now act against your freedoms. So we just use the generic term corpostate to describe this phenomenon, even though it’s not always true that there is conscious collision between the two. There is not a formal corpostate entity, it is more a state of affairs described by this one word.


The concept of creating intentional communities has often been associated with the worse examples: namely hippy communes and cults. People clustering together in close proximity to other people who share their values is literally how America was started. What makes an intentional community a cult in our eyes is: no private ownership of property, a hierarchy that controls people’s lives, isolation from the outside world, exclusiveness that is positively xenophobic, unhealthy practices and rituals, and often some form of “end of the world” or doomsday scenario. 

Our concept is pluralistic, diverse, inclusive, participatory, and is not even limited to people living on one plot of land. We do not propose hierarchies. Our vision of the future is positive and hopeful. What we do embrace is the idea of intentionality in how we live our lives and cooperate or engage with other people in a way that actually fits our values and our common love for freedom, freedom based on nothing more than the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights. 

In the early days of American expansion to the West, for instance, the “rugged individuals’ who  built this country often joined wagon trains and formed tight-knit communities and close bonds. This is the proper image of intentional community- it creates strong support and it supports individualism and individuality. This kind of intentional community was formed to pioneer new things and to promote and build freedom for all, not through control and central planning, but through mutual respect. This kind of community is liberating, never controlling.

The purpose of the wagon train, hence the phrase “circle the wagons”, was to endure hardship together in what was a more wild and untamed land, filled with natural and man-made hazards. In no way would we consider a wagon train, a moveable community that might stay together for a few years crossing the land and more once they settled, any form or commune of cult. It is this kind of intentionality we envision. Many relationships were long-term bonds that lasted a lifetime, even with people who didn’t always stay in the same place, This pure mutual benefit, profit, and mutual assurance of help and safety in no way infringed on these rugged individuals.

Our concept of intentional community is not in conflict with the rugged individualism we also promote, and that is essential. Intentional community that promotes your individuality and individual dignity must always avoid those practices we described as leading to communes and cults. Indeed, communes and cults thrive when we face uncertain times and existing institutions fail to meet people’s needs.

We do not envision developing freedom hubs without private ownership. The modality of the mutual benefit corporation is a legal necessity to allow people of a like-mind to cluster together, however individual ownership of shares ensure that private property is respected and, if you choose to leave such a corporate entity and move, you will receive back the value of the shares you own in a free market exchange, 

We do not in any way endorse any kind of hierarchy that isn’t responsive to, and subordinated to, a consensual decision-making process based on some sort of status or standing of merit, such as shares owned and things more in tune with a free market.  Anyone who desires to create something like what we have in mind needs to be inclusive, pluralistic, and have a decision-making process based on the free market and consensus. 

Being free from corpostate overreach, wherein they violate your privacy, exploit you, defraud you, and violate both your rights and dignity, is basic justice in our eyes. We should never be compelled to subordinate our lives to other human beings for their gain at our expense.

The Democrats are the primary Party of the Corpostate, the revolving door between corporations, corporate media outlets, and elected or administrative office in government blurs the line between these entities. But the overall goal, even if it is unspoken, is for the ruling class and their minions to gain wealth and power at your expense. Their constant harping on justice and racism or anything else they use to virtue-signal to get support is a con job. They care nothing about any of these things.

The corpostate revolving door blurs the line between corporation and state and makes BOTH enemies a hazard to your freedom!

How do we know they don’t really care about justice? We know this because all their actions tend to take wealth from the many and transfer it to them. We know this because their “solutions” are unjust. We know this because their approach always ends up taking decision-making power from the many and giving it to the few.

We can watch helplessly while all this comes down OR we can take proactive steps to be more free unilaterally among ourselves.

The three main ways we see organizing a freedom hub are through a mutual benefit corporation that owns buildings for the exclusive use/benefit of your members, a land trust to own the land and protect it from being sub-divided, and a fraternal beneficiary society which can provide fraternal benefits to members and do good works for the benefit of the public. Your community may also own a housing development and/or property management company to cater to the general public and a number of other entities, including non-profit, not-for-profit, political, and for-profit.

There is no one single way to establish such a community, with just one legal structure. You may form a virtual, unofficial community, with its own governance structure. You may form an llc or corporation that owns whatever platform you set up and charges subscriptions, then have the llc donate funds to your other entities. This is informal, but, in general, as the same group of people will own and control all entities, the decisions made within your informal virtual community can be carried out formally by your other entities.

The Mutual Benefit Corporation

A mutual benefit corporation owns common property and its members receive shares which are the equivalent of ownership. In our case, a mutual benefit corporation may own a housing development and its members own shares instead of directly owning the houses themselves. This is important because mutual benefit corporations can have a membership requirement, such as being only open to members of a fraternal society. While a single larger community may include houses owned by a mutual benefit corporation that is exclusive to members of your society or whatever, it may have multiple MBC’s operating and owning buildings as well as offer some residential and commercial space to the general public.

Land Trust

A land trust is a way for a body of people to own land in common, preserve its use for certain ends, conceal their direct ownership, and protect the land from being subdivided or having liens placed against it. The land of your community, or lands in a distributed community, is held in a common land trust, which the members contribute to and/or which individual landowners may donate their land to. In the case where land is donated, the owner still owns the house. All the lands where any activity for your distributed community takes place or where people live or work should, ideally, be held by your land trust.

Fraternal Benefit Society

A fraternal benefit society is a way to organize any group of people around a fraternal interest, be it culture, nationality, religion, or profession. A fraternal benefit society can conduct many activities both for the mutual benefit of its members and for a public good. It can own property and businesses. It is exclusive to those who have the fraternal interest and are members. Through this legal structure, your community can both be connected to many similar communities and you can enjoy more internal socioeconomic benefits and autonomy.

It is important to avoid creating a community, if it is one large, intentional community on one piece of land, that is isolated and closed off from the world. It may be prudent to have the means to control entry, especially in a time of emergency or crisis, but if your community is a walled garden isolated from the world it will be treated with suspicion and will earn the ire of local officials.

What is more, if our ideal is a free and pluralistic society, we should build community around that vision. In short, your community may include diverse mutual benefit corporations and also have housing and commercial space made available to the general public. We can imagine a village of 1200 homes (at the upper limit of a freedom hub) that has multiple neighborhoods of around 20 homes each, with common areas and markets in between, that incudes 5-10

Beginning your community may be as simple as creating a Compact that describes your community, its ideals, its system of governance, and its goals. See THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT for inspiration. In some cases, as with our Upadaria Project, your community may actually be a local version and/or chapter of a larger national and global community. Your initial charter may be based on guidance of pre-formatted resources provided by the larger community to which you belong. But every local community should have some autonomy in terms of its local standards, priorities, and goals.

As an example, a Upadarian Shirehold Estate is a single piece of property owned by a Upadarian Land Trust which has as its main clients (who rent  land from the Land Trust)  mutual benefit corporations, the NGO, and a housing development corporation. The Estate may also sell houses, but own the land, to the general public, with homeowners having a housing covenant and leasing the land.

Riqueday Castle is a planned global administrative center and regional support hub for our intentional NGO.

One is limited to peers of the Society and another is limited to subscribers of the virtual platform, Upadaria.  It may even have a third MBC that caters to a specific group of people with a fraternal interest.

It would also have an area set aside for refugees  and people in crisis (owned by the NGO) and one for leasing residential and commercial space to the public, which is both a service (ensuring affordable housing and business space to the community) and a means of offsetting costs for non-profit and mutual benefit activities. This latter area would be a housing development corporation owned by the local chapter of the Upadarian Society, with profits going to a combination of mutual benefit and benevolence services.

A Shirehold may include as many as 120 adults, around 30 or so families and attached single adults, but not every member may choose to or be able to live in the Estate itself. A single Estate may have 20 residences for Peers (members of the Upadarian Society), 20 for subscribers to the virtual platform, 10 for people in need or refugees, and maybe 20 or so residences and 5-10 shops leased to the public.

But in a larger community, say a whole Support Hub of around 1200 homes, Estates may be more unitary, as in all Shirehold members live there and most of the space is set aside for Peers, but other Estates whose buildings are owned or leased by other mutual benefit corporations and other open areas, leased to the public, would form a sort of pluralistic checkerboard. The ratios of Peers to subscribers to the public may be 40, 20, 20 for housing, not including housing set aside for refugees and people in crisis, but no neighborhood of more than 100 or so homes would exist on an exclusive basis.

Your approach to a freedom hub may be different, but if it lacks pluralism it isn’t really a freedom hub.  You certainly have a right to form as large a mutual benefit corporation as you wish, but isolated and exclusive communities of any scale beyond 100 or so people can and will become problematic, we think. 

We do not wish to ever see those old “no Jews” and “no blacks” signs re-appear. Our aim is a free and pluralistic society of clustered individuals who have the maternal enclosure of a close-knit extended multi-family “household” but who also have direct connections to the broader world. This is a healthy balance of the need for mutuality on a close-proximity basis and the need for a pluralism that allows for diversity within the unity of a common freedom standard.

A freedom hub is pluralistic and diverse. That is one of its chief characteristics. It allows for unity and exclusiveness at a reasonable scale that lets people choose their immediate sociocultural environment without in any way showing intolerance toward others or discriminating. In the event we see massive-scale exclusionary communities emerge, people whose religious beliefs, ethnicity, or whatever aren’t in the “in” group or majority would face intolerance and discrimination, which is not consistent with any notion of freedom.

A group of freewill Baptists or devoted vegans may form their own smaller neighborhood within a freedom hub, but a freedom hub would be welcoming to both within a larger freedom standard. That standard is being devoted to the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights as the basis of your conduct toward your fellow freedom hub members.

While our Upadaria Project will operate its own freedom hubs, including area-wide distributed cities with multiple hubs and smaller common facilities, in some cases a Upadarian Shirehold may set up an Estate with another entity’s freedom hub and other entities may set up their own Estates (or whatever they call them) in one of our larger hubs.

The largest hub might actually be the size of a city.  We could see freedom hub cities that have a special private charter from host government that grants internal autonomy in exchange for revenue-sharing, area investment, and other considerations. A Upo Hub City, one operated privately by our planned international NGO, might have multiple smaller hubs, as a berg, borough, or ward within the city, leased by other entities that have their own version of a freedom hub, plus space for the public, and yet also have its own exclusive hubs for members, subscribers, and refugees.

A distributed city of refuge, not the smaller (numbered) areas are sub-chapters and varioues facilities, estates, and hubs would be located within these areas, not separate from the local community, but part of them all, engaged with them all.

In most cases, freedom hubs may be a single Estate, or its equivalent, and that Estate may not be in one single location. Perhaps it owns a few houses and apartment buildings within a small locale, along with some common facilities and some plots of land. It doesn’t have to be located on one single property to be a freedom hub, but close proximity is necessary to a large degree.

Freedom hubs are not irreducibly complex, they can begin as a small informal association of friends and family for agree to mutually support one another and explore ways to disconnect from a life of dependence on structures that disrespect their rights, persons, or property. A freedom hub could even be a small camp as a jointly-owned property in the event of emergencies which can also be used recreationally and/or to offer temporary housing to members or people in need.

In some cases, a group of freedom-mined friends who are all renting homes today could pool their resources, form a mutual benefit corporation, and build a small estate or buy a condominium or apartment building. They would be smart to also offer some publicly leased properties so as to both raise money to offset costs and to avoid being isolated. This may prove impractical at a smaller scale, however.

In some cases, the people already live in the same locale and can just act as a single “extended household community”, sharing resources. They may build. but, or lease a common space, such as a Chapter House of Common House, for local gatherings and activities and perhaps with some limited transitional housing for members in need or guests. 

The heart of this idea is mutual self-reliance aimed at practical ways for members to become economically and materially self-sufficient without needing to depend on the corpostate or its structures and yet without disengaging from the greater world in an unhealthy way. As the “freedom hub movement” grows, and as more and more people choose this option, the ability of the corpostate to control society goes down. And because this organic, decentralized, and distributed widely, it would be impossible to shit this down permanently. It would also be blatantly unjust to such as a degree as to undermine the public’s feeling that the present structures are legitimate. 

It is a practical and practicable idea  that can begin with a few friends pledging to mutually support one another and networking together for mutual benefit, but it can up to include an international NGO and larger-scale communities the size of cities. It is workable and necessary, there is no good reason for you not to want to be part of such an undertaking. 

Proximity and Scalability- Why We Believe We Need An International Effort, Not Disconnected Local Efforts

One of the advantages of aligning with the Upadaria project for your local group or network is a close proximity of cooperation coupled with scalability.

There are many things you can do as a single, small group of people on the basis of a broad common standard. Transactional exchanges, such as sharing resources like group buying, are possible, for instance. But closer proximity cooperation, such as having common meals or helping with childcare, requires much closer proximity of beliefs.

We don’t envision isolated communities , we envision pluralistic communities.

Proximity of convictions that comes from agreed standards and norms, such as the 17 Protocols of Upadaria, is organic and natural and doesn’t require top-down control. As a general rule of thumb, proximity of shared convictions must be close in order for maximum cooperation within minimal control. Where this proximity is lacking, the result is disunity or a form of unity that comes from a top-down structure.

Next is the issue of scalability. Your small group is limited to size, at a certain point it becomes unwieldy and most of the members will not have a real voice in affairs. He dynamic of a larger group beyond 120 people, or between 10-30 people and 120 people even, differs. A closer proximity of beliefs and distance between members allows for maximum participation and gives everyone a real voice.

But your smaller group of 30 or 120 people has real limits in terms of resources and the ability to content with or be in an equal footing with larger-scale entities, like your local government or a corporation. Your smaller group has limits on skills, the larger the group or network the more highly skilled, professional, and skilled people will be members. Highly skilled people who can provide sound advice and counsel and navigate difficult legal or technical problems and who can impart skills to others will be needed.

A local group that has no network outside itself, or that has a network that lacks proximity of convictions, is severely limited in its material, legal, and technical resources and will only be able to achieve a lower level of self-reliance or prosperity. Scalability means you idea and structure can both maintain the smaller-scale cohesiveness and yet connect cohesively to larger networks and groups for mutual support and benefit.

A distributed community, or Shire, of, say, 70,000 Upadarians who may include over 1200 individual Shireholds of 120 or so adults divided into 4 or 5 smaller Round Table Groups, within a region of a million people that covers around 2,000 square miles will have vastly more legal, technical, and economic resources than a small group of 120 people. What is more, based on our distributed and decentralized model, your smaller group would still retain its autonomy and intimacy, it would not be submerged within the whole.

We envision building distributed cities, called Shires or Bergs, that have hundreds of small-scale, self-contained, autonomous “household groups” dispersed all over, and which are served by larger-scale facilities and hubs that give them far more resources and capabilities than they could have on their own.

Many will want to keep their small group small and will not desire or agree to connecting to a larger vision outside that group. They could just use the Shirehold concept, in their own way. But we are convinced of the need for a much larger globally distributed community, or network of distributed communities and hubs, that can operate at a very large-scale without losing their own autonomy or unique identity.

The key thing for Upadarians is that, while we utilize and emphasize local, autonomous groupings that obtain mutual self-reliance and mutual assurance, we are called into a larger, global vision to eventually create a large-scale web 3.0 platform, to build a global network of cities of refuge, and to establish an international NGO with as much standing under international law as possible. The reason we start with and emphasize the large-scale vision, including a globally distributed spiritual nation and the rise of a new Christian civilization, is that our focus is beyond the local even though it includes the local.

A small group of people could benefit from using these ideas and principles but they could not eventually build larger-scale city-sized hubs to support Christian refugees and world missions or create large-scale organizations that have the standing needed to represent and defend the rights and interests of their members before governments.

This is part of the reason why we look for people whom God calls and leads to adopt our big vision, for a new spiritual nation and a new civilization rooted in our Christian ideals, principles, and practices. For those who are only looking for ways to benefit their existing local group or network, there are sound and useful ideas contained within our vision which you can use on your own, without being part of our society or our spiritual nation.

This is just an illustration, however, of a specific application of the concept. But this concept has a much broader application and usefulness.

On a broader basis, we envision “freedomist” networks at scale which your local group could join and cooperate with, using the same general principle. The whole point, and the main take away, is that we can begin building our own alternatives forms and structures to promote and experience a freedom hub that both reflects our values and nurtures freedom for all people.