Building a Community That Lasts

I was exchanging correspondence with authors, philosophers, mathematicians, and engineers Rob O'Grady (150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future) and Dmitry Orlov (Communities That Abide) on the subject of "Community". Their comments to me shall remain private. Herewith is my reply to one exchange:

(Quote)

Hey Rob and DO, thanks for the reply.

I focused in on your "community-lite" remark (naturally). Of course, I think that is the right way to go about this.

Community, as I grok it, simply cannot be "communal". I visited "The ****", the largest and oldest commune in the U.S.—and it was a shocking disgrace. The population consisted of feckless and mentally ill aging male hippies, few women, and no children. I was appalled. I had planned to stay for a week but realized that by day 2 that I had seen the entire abasement, and so we left. It should be mentioned that my wife and the younger children had seen enough by lunchtime of the first day (we arrived late the night before on our converted school bus that we use as an "RV"; the "welcome" we got is a story in and of itself). I am still traumatized by the experience. This was the moment that I fully grokked Dmitry's railing against the distraction of politics. The place was one *huge* political distraction of protest where nothing got done—but they were extremely proud of their solar array, so they had that going for them (snicker). I asked them where their dairy was, or their hen (eggs) house, or the grain mill, or the livestock—things a self-sufficient "community" needs either individually or communally— and was informed that they were all vegetarian and that they did not keep livestock. So I assumed that they would have massive gardens and fruit patches and orchards to make up for the absence of animal calories. What I saw sickened me. It seemed to me that their socio-economic model was to collect government "disability" checks and to rent space to park dilapidated trailers upon where they might "live"—if one can call what I saw there "living".

What I propose is to encourage young couples/families who have the ability to finance the purchase of a functioning homestead in our community (there are several Amish farms for sale and a number of parcels large enough to homestead on), and then "lend" them equipment/tools/implements if they cannot afford them (they may keep the implements if they succeed; and if they fail the equipment belongs to the community and can be used by other community members in a similar fashion) and help them get started in a marketable trade or artisan business. Because, as I continue to noodle this, unlike the Amish and the Mennonites, these people will need several years to learn how to make themselves productive in this way of living. They have no knowledge of this way of life, having spent their existence moving bytes around on a screen and occasionally talking on a telephone. Worse, they may well have spent time listening to crazy people on the Web (or reading "homesteading" books) and have internalized opinions very much like the way many of them have internalized political belief systems. I have a solution for this: For not a great deal of money, our organization can hire a Mennonite or Amishman to teach newcomers with a hands-on example, almost an apprenticeship, at his farm. There has to be redundancy. I am not getting any younger. The key is to get to critical mass. At least 10 families with children. With that, between newcomers and children coming of age, we can get our community to model after the typical Amish or Mennonite "church group community" of 25 families—coincidentily enough, roughly 150 souls; a "Dunbar number" community—in short order.

I have had lots of interest from "whoofers" (they actually call themselves this). I would tend to call them "loafers" and have taken to discourage them from visiting given the poor experience we have had with them in the past. A community cannot survive single and uncommitted transients any more than it can survive childless middle-aged couples. The former consumes time and resources and then leave, making absolutely no contribution to the community whatsoever, and I fear that the latter would consume time and resources and then, infinitely worse, might stay and consume more and more community resources and turning the community into an old age home that young families would flee from. Families will take care of their own their own, but it is unreasonable to ask young families to accept into the community people who have not made a lifetime of contribution but who will now require end of life support and comfort.

(For my upcoming book I coined the term “The Feminist paradox” to describe this. Feminists may well hate men, marriage, family, and children—but elderly Feminists will happily consume the resources and efforts of families and other people’s offspring. They will also happily consume inheritances from their own parents and ancestors while making no personal sacrifices and providing nothing to future generations. (Here, read what Kant, the Left's favorite philosopher, has to say on the subject.)

Feminists were complicit in the murders of millions of unborn babies and now, in the Feminists’ old age, they want to hold a gun to the head of the babies they didn't kill—the now-adult offspring of their contemporaries and seize resources by (government) force. This is also true of the LBGTVQR community. I am not denying the humanity of any human being; I am pointing out the economic realities of using government extracted resources to fund social programs for what has always been—and will soon be again—family and personal responsibility. It is not a coincidence that childless people are less interested in private property and inheritance and find collectivism appealing. They have no family to command their loyalty and have no difficulty justifying the confiscation of resources from others by government force (mob rule).)

Imagine the Mayflower or one of the early settlement ships coming to North America from Europe. Did they send single men? Or couples too old to have children? Of course not. Too, most settlers of new communities in the past had the benefit of a lifetime of actual and useful skills. Can you imagine a shipful of today's recent college graduates being set ashore in New England in the 17th century? In any event, any new settlement, community, or nation for that matter cannot be formed around people who do not produce children.

In any event, I am thrilled to hear that you have four families in your community. You are getting closer to the critical mass needed for success.

Regards,

Greg


(Unquote)