Patriotic Group To Build Armed 'Defensible' Neighborhood Fortress

I look forward to this episode of "Doomsday Preppers"

This idea is great in my eyes but i don't see the government letting this happen. In a sense this is what happened in waco texas but it was religious cult. In the governments eyes this will look like an Anarchist cult that they won't put up with. With the NDAA going on now, all they have to do is go swoop them up and it's done.

reply to post by AnonN3t


how can it be a good idea? it's not a mobile base, it's just waiting for 50mm cannons to sight in on it with some H.E. when a war starts. waco? ruby ridge? that place would get sieged by any army rangers sapper unit.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I would like to make an observation/ask a question concerning something I don't feel has been properly discussed in this thread.

But first a note: over the past 24+ hours I have read the entire thread - laughed out loud a few times and shook my head a few other times - and overall I have to say that despite being a spirited debate, it still managed to keep a more respectful tone than many similar ATS threads of late. So kudos to you for that. I've also seen you, and a few others on here, take a breather and meet in the middle - you don't see humble pie too often on ATS. So the thread may be dying, but it's to be commended that it was a good and entertaining thread, though at times perhaps a bit myopic. Which brings me to my observation/question:

I've read the entire website for the Citadel and I am not seeing its true purpose being properly acknowledged here. This is not about liberty - in the broad, all encompassing definition of the term. This is about guns being equated with the meaning of liberty, and about a group wanting to create a gun community. The Citadel by its own admission defines liberty as expressly tied to gun ownership, gun proficiency and gun use. The site talks a whole lot about guns and very little about anything else. The Patriot Agreement lays out specific terms related to gun ownership as a condition for membership, but says little about other criteria for its members, other than "your application will be reviewed by we who receive it."

I see a lot of people talking about this being "a good idea" and "the way of the future." Am I to infer that people want gun-based communities like this? That they believe this is the true spirit of America? Is this some kind of new religion I should be aware of (the Amish have been used as a point of comparison and they are based on a religion - but then I see denials that this is a religion so I'm a tad confused). Or am I to infer a lot of people who read this thread made assumptions about the intent and "spirit" of this proposed community but didn't bother to read the fine print?

I called this place "Gunland" in a previous post, slightly tongue in cheek, but what else would you call it given the evidence the site presents? It IS Gunland. I am not trying to bait you by asking this. I am genuinely curious as to why there is so much double speak going on about what is really the goal. It's about forming a gun-based community. Why be afraid to call it by its name if you consider supporting what it stands for?

I am truly curious because I'm unfamiliar with such a mindset and would like to understand it better.

Thanks for the thread at any rate.

A Constitution cult, that does sound like fun!

I worry about any community whose primary aims are the promotion of absolute patriotism, nationalism and pride. Three of the biggest causes of conflict right there.

I personally wouldn't want to live in a community that makes me swear unquestioningly to the doctrine of a group of european colonialists written hundreds of years ago. I bet many independently minded kids who are forced to spend their childhoods marching around saluting flags, worshipping weapons of death and chanting hollow words about blind pride will probably end up feeling the same too.

I'd much rather live in a forward-looking community which actively works on progressing our understanding of ourselves and our world, rather than one obsessed with one particular phase of our progress. I'd rather be around free thinkers, I don't see too much thinking going on with these guys.

Originally posted by yampa
A Constitution cult, that does sound like fun!

Define "cult" for as all please...

I see a lot of people talking about this being "a good idea" and "the way of the future." Am I to infer that people want gun-based communities like this? That they believe this is the true spirit of America? Is this some kind of new religion I should be aware of (the Amish have been used as a point of comparison and they are based on a religion - but then I see denials that this is a religion so I'm a tad confused). Or am I to infer a lot of people who read this thread made assumptions about the intent and "spirit" of this proposed community but didn't bother to read the fine print?

reply to post by otherpotato

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful post. Let me try to give you my thoughts, as of course, I cannot speak to those of others. As a professor, one of the things I tried to do, was encourage thoughtful debate among my students. Sometimes, I would throw up a proposal for debate, without ever letting the students know where I stood on the subject. At other times, I would take a position, even though it was not my position, because I wanted to see how students would react. I found that each subject was unique, and there was no "one size fits all" rule. OF course, as the professor, it was relatively easy to enforce rules of respect, but here on ATS, certainly there is rather limited ability to do that. I thoroughly enjoyed my retirement years as a tenured professor, after a successful career in industry, and then running my own business. I joined ATS after retiring, to keep my mind active, and enjoy debating, as is probably obvious. Over the years, I took "vacations" from ATS, when I thought that trolls outnumbered those seriously interested in debate. Since my last hiatus, I have waded back into the waters here, to see if the water was more inviting.
To specifically address your question, I tried looking into other sources of the referenced proposed enterprise, and found little to uncover its true intent. The concept certainly got my attention, as an attempt to address a set of issues that I believe are on virtually every citizen's mind, whether they realize it or not.
Humans very frequently do things for reasons other than what they advertise. I think that only time will tell what the true intent of this group is, but I do at least see it as the group's intent to solve a problem that the believe exists.
Often, I read through threads, and get the feeling that most people believe that there is a growing problem, not only with the economics of our country(which I think virtually everyone acknowledges), but with the lack of solutions by government to address the myriad problems that exist in society as a whole.
I am constantly surprised to see some members who express those beliefs completely turn around, in a debate and defend the status quo. I suppose that is a common trait of humanity as a whole, since as a negative corollary, if that were not true, we probably wouldn't continue to have such problems.
As to humble pie, I certainly, as a human being, have many faults, and occasionally go off the reservation with my responses, something I don't approve of, but try to recognize when that happens. One of the problems of electronic debate, is the inability to see a person's reaction to a comment I have made, and thus, I only see it well after the fact. I certainly would prefer face to face debate, but given the problems today, that would be a disaster in an internet world, unless the debate were not anonymous. We need not state why, in today's world, that is not possible in such a wide environment.
Anyway, as a rather senior person, and given my age, I tend to ramble. I hope I at least have addressed some of your issues. I cannot speak to the other participants, here, but please let me know if I can respond to other concerns and questions you have.
Thank you again for your extremely thoughtful post.
Peace

I personally wouldn't want to live in a community that makes me swear unquestioningly to the doctrine of a group of european colonialists written hundreds of years ago. I bet many independently minded kids who are forced to spend their childhoods marching around saluting flags, worshipping weapons of death and chanting hollow words about blind pride will probably end up feeling the same too.

reply to post by yampa

I understand what you are saying, but when you take away the obvious differences in technology, those "European colonialists" were probably concerned about many of the same issues that many are today. In every age, there are those that not only see a problem, but act to address the problem with solutions. That does not say anything about whether those solutions are always correct, but in my humble opinion, the Founding Fathers didn't do such a bad job with their solution. Technology has, of course, exacerbated those problems today, because with instant communications, more conflicting parties can "involve" themselves in an issue. Who is the enemy? Who are your allies? It was very clear in colonial America, but today, those lines are clouded by so many participant groups and conflicting beliefs and customs.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

I understand what you are saying, but when you take away the obvious differences in technology, those "European colonialists" were probably concerned about many of the same issues that many are today. In every age, there are those that not only see a problem, but act to address the problem with solutions.

I think many of those involved in the development of america were highly humanistic, enlightened and educated to a level not regularly seen in modern western society. They were often people who truly cared about the condition of their fellow man and make great efforts for the betterment of all. So, yes, no doubt some good and smart people wrote that document and it should not be considered lightly.

But how much of that humanism do we see in the rhetoric of this Idaho community? Where are the words promoting the reduction of all human suffering? Where is modern doctrine of emancipation here? Where is even the recognition of the concept of progress and fundamental enlightenment?

In my imagination, smart, humane people like those who drafted the Constitution would be facepalming in their grave over how little those advertising this 'fortress' have learnt about themselves, the world and the human condition.

I think many of those involved in the development of america were highly humanistic, enlightened and educated to a level not regularly seen in modern western society. They were often people who truly cared about the condition of their fellow man and make great efforts for the betterment of all. So, yes, no doubt some good and smart people wrote that document and it should not be considered lightly. But how much of that humanism do we see in the rhetoric of this Idaho community? Where are the words promoting the reduction of all human suffering? Where is modern doctrine of emancipation here? Where is even the recognition of the concept of progress and fundamental enlightenment?

reply to post by yampa

I don't disagree with what you just said. However, I believe the issue is not whether they have "honorable" intentions or not, but rather, do they have the right to pursue their project? Excluding a group of people from Constitutionally protected rights leads us to what happened to an unfortunate group in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. I don't think any of us have the right to judge what is considered just or honorable, as long as they are doing no harm to anyone.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


So you're mad because your neighbors dont want clotheslines in their neighborhoods and also because they dont want Christmas lights up until the end of January?! Where is the problem with that? Sounds like you just have a problem with authority. If you dont want to have rules then why move into a neighborhood with an HOA? I hear trailer parks dont have those problems but you probably already knew that huh?

reply to post by yampa


You claim these individuals were a caring humanistic bunch when that is laughable at best. how can all men be considered equal when you go back to the plantations with your hundred slaves? This is hypocrisy at its best! This country's laws were made for white men, by white men, nothing more nothing less! They considered black people as property and didnt have that much affection for women either and we are supposed to hold these #s up in high esteem?! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I've heard of this outfit, you need $$$$$ to join the club. I wonder how it will turn out...

If you dont want to have rules then why move into a neighborhood with an HOA?

reply to post by SkinsFan913


I already addressed that several times in this thread. Your tone indicates you don't feel like abiding by the rules I requested at the start of this thread. Fortunately, you are in a very small minority on this thread. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by SkinsFan913
reply to post by yampa

 

You claim these individuals were a caring humanistic bunch when that is laughable at best. how can all men be considered equal when you go back to the plantations with your hundred slaves? This is hypocrisy at its best! This country's laws were made for white men, by white men, nothing more nothing less! They considered black people as property and didnt have that much affection for women either and we are supposed to hold these #s up in high esteem?! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

I'm not idealising them and I agree with what you're saying - which is one of the reasons I think it's crazy to take an absolute literal stance on the constitution - it definitely wasn't designed by angels and it was written in a brutal time of holocaust and slavery. But it is also true that the dialogue of humanism and enlightenment existed around the founding fathers in way that is entirely absent in the likes of Glenn Beck and most involved in politics today - humanism or progress is not even an issue for those guys.

For example, Jefferson:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

I'll consider signing up for one of these libertarian communes when Glenn Beck goes on TV and starts saying things like that..

reply to post by ProfEmeritus
This is the whole safety in numbers thing. People have started doing this for several years now but on a much smaller scale. I thinks it’s only because of the amount of people who are involved in this particular community that it is gaining any media attention.

Our family has circled the wagons too, if you will. A few years back my family and I sold our home in town and purchased some property a few miles outside the city limits with the intentions of becoming more self sufficient. Not to avert any major government meltdown or disaster, but mainly to reduce our spending. With the way things are going lately it’s not a bad idea to live how our grandparents lived and be self sufficient.

We were lucky that the area we purchased in has likeminded adjoining land owners, and we are currently making arrangements to accommodate several family members both long term and short.

Good thread OP, S&F

Our family has circled the wagons too, if you will. A few years back my family and I sold our home in town and purchased some property a few miles outside the city limits with the intentions of becoming more self sufficient. Not to avert any major government meltdown or disaster, but mainly to reduce our spending. With the way things are going lately it’s not a bad idea to live how our grandparents lived and be self sufficient. We were lucky that the area we purchased in has likeminded adjoining land owners, and we are currently making arrangements to accommodate several family members both long term and short.

reply to post by JBpage76

I admire what you and your family did. We actually tried to do that, but in our state, it was virtually impossible to find affordable land that was not owned by a developer. I probably could today, because many of these developers have declared bankruptcy. However, we have so much invested in our home now, which is fully paid for, and because of the HOA and the distressed state of home sales, we could never get back anything close to what we would need to move. In addition, there are family reasons it would be virtually impossible to move now. Anyway, we are fairly self-sufficient, since we grow virtually all of our produce, and we barter excess with others for goods. The tough part is that I have constant battles with the HOA, as they don't understand that when you grow vegetables in a 2,000 square foot garden, they can't be kept as "neat" as they want them. I usually win those battles with them, but it is a constant struggle. At this point, they have a target on us, because we just won't give in to their Nazi-like demands.
HOA's are a microcosm of what I believe is happening in the US at large today, namely letting others slowly but steadily erode our personal freedom, under the guise of idiotic comments like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This is exactly what Hitler did, and it is what is going on with our "government" today. It is a constant struggle to maintain any degree of personal freedom.
God bless you and your family for your wise decision.
Peace.

reply to post by yampa


Your cult sounds infinitely worse though, it normally involves brainwashing and loosing your individuality.

reply to post by WatchRider


not only that, is the place safe from artillery? from the site it looks like it is not safe from artillery. it actually looks like you could use trebuchets to siege the place

It's cool. Having an island would be a lot cooler though. Like Lost, without the strange stuff and limbo and I'd be there.