[Bland]

I'm a long time reader and sporadic poster. I've followed the development of this forum, and I'm impressed with how the forum has evolved to become a force for political and cultural change. I think, perhaps, the forum could eventually intersect with another one of my interests: intentional communities.
(A thread started by RexImperator thread-58153.html touches a bit on planned communities, but not to the level of detail here).

An intentional community is a planned community based around certain values. Different communities are organized around a wide variety of values, but the central idea is that they are a place for like-minded people to live in proximity and reinforce the values that they all hold.

The forum itself is already a sort of virtual intentional community, and it has already been much more successful than I would have thought at spreading its influence beyond the virtual world into things like politics and the culture wars. The absolute number of men here is not great, but the quality of those men allows their influence to be multiplied. Still, I think it is a major uphill battle to fix the problems in Western society or even to halt the degradation. Things are just too far gone.

However, intentional communities are typically successful in preserving their values within the confines of the community even when those values clash with those of society at large. There are many examples of small but successful intentional communities in the United States. Communities with a wide variety of value systems have been allowed to exist with relatively little interference, as long as they've played nice with the government. Most of these communities are leftist communes, but there are several examples with right-wing value systems including different traditions of Amish and Mennonites and the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

If enough RVFers joined together to live in an intentional community, we'd be able to enforce our values and keep out the toxic values of modern Western culture. If we did it in a low population state it's possible that our numbers could be enough to influence politics just like the Free State Project.

Furthermore, this could solve the issue of what to do with your traditional foreign bride. Many RVFers have married or are considering marrying foreign brides who have the traditional values and femininity that many modern Western career-oriented women lack. However, these men know that moving their foreign bride to the United States will likely end up in her being corrupted by the domestic culture. So the most common strategy seems to be to keep the foreign bride in her birth country. However, many guys would prefer the amenities that somewhere like the United States affords.

An intentional community could solve this problem. If the community is made up of only RVFer men and traditional women, then the women will reinforce their own good value systems rather than be corrupted by Western women.

So if this is something that our forum decides it wants to consider, there are several questions to be answered:
1. How many men would want to do something like this?
2. Where should the community be based?
3. What exactly would be the rules of the community?
4. What skills would the community members have and what type of industries could the community be involved in?

This is clearly a very forward-looking and speculative post. I don't think anybody is ready to uproot their lives and move to a nascent RVF intentional community. But I think the time to start discussing this type of idea is upon us, as things in the West get worse.

This would be a major undertaking. We'd essentially be going Galt. It would be a major challenge, but also a great adventure. Please let me know what you guys think.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I have thought about something like that.

And the only way I see it manifested is when someone of us makes 200+ mio. $, buys a sizable piece of land or an island and invites like-minded men onto the property to live and prosper with his family, or work on various businesses.

The rules would be mostly the rules of the owner, but if he is a reasonable guy, then you will be able to adapt. If that guy were me or Roosh, then most neo-masculine men here would be fine with it. Pooling resources and doing it in a joint fashion would make this way too much a structure where there are too many chiefs.

So until one of us gets that kind of cash and is willing to pool it into that kind of project, I see no way to manifest this realistically and uphold it. I think the richest member here is worth a bit over 100 mio. $, but I doubt that he would want to invest 20-40 mio. $ of his net worth in such a project and worry about it in addition to investing.

[debeguiled]

Didn't you see what happened when members tried to get together for drinks and a chat?

Why not just say it? You are trying to start rape communities.

[Jetset]

I'd be interested in something like this as a seasonal retreat. Some place in the high desert with a well-stocked whiskey bar and a good firepit where I can go fishing, do some handywork on the property, and read classical literature.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's an interesting topic but unlikely to yield good results.

How will you reconcile the sort of lifestyle that someone earning 7 figures a year expects with someone earning 5? What's the guy earning 5 figures going to bring to the table and how is it going to be balanced against pure cash? Is the guy with few skills and no prospects tilling the RVF organic garden really anything but an employee of the guy that's funding the whole thing?

On the flip side, what kind of authority should the guy funding the operation have over the "employee" if he's not really an employee? What if he stops tilling? Who tells him to start again or fuck off?

These sorts of operations have limited instances of success, and that's even when all the participants are in the same income bracket (typically a very low one). When disparity comes into play the tangle of obligations and entitlements becomes impossible to navigate.

You would be better off choosing a poor rural district (preferably one that's only poor due to shitty management or a lack of vision) and flooding it with RVF members willing to buy their own place.

Otherwise you have an impossible balancing act of rich/poor/full-time/part-time/fly-in/fly-out to contend with. A capitalist system is best in that scenario where people put their own blood and sweat in to keep their own equity and simply enjoy the pleasure of each others company as a huge side-bonus.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-30-2017 11:02 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

I'd be interested in something like this as a seasonal retreat. Some place in the high desert with a well-stocked whiskey bar and a good firepit where I can go fishing, do some handywork on the property, and read classical literature.

This is probably the most reasonable and realistic option.

[TooFineAPoint]

A voluntary private community, I like.

Perhaps some way to mitigate future issues would be to have a loose conglomerate of a handful of such communities worldwide, with a club-style membership so that we could move among them all.

That way if some external disaster happens to one community, members could have recourse to temporarily stay in another location. Also, if one community goes insane it could be dropped in support by the larger group.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-30-2017 08:11 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's an interesting topic but unlikely to yield good results.

How will you reconcile the sort of lifestyle that someone earning 7 figures a year expects with someone earning 5? What's the guy earning 5 figures going to bring to the table and how is it going to be balanced against pure cash? Is the guy with few skills and no prospects tilling the RVF organic garden really anything but an employee of the guy that's funding the whole thing?

On the flip side, what kind of authority should the guy funding the operation have over the "employee" if he's not really an employee? What if he stops tilling? Who tells him to start again or fuck off?

These sorts of operations have limited instances of success, and that's even when all the participants are in the same income bracket (typically a very low one). When disparity comes into play the tangle of obligations and entitlements becomes impossible to navigate.

You would be better off choosing a poor rural district (preferably one that's only poor due to shitty management or a lack of vision) and flooding it with RVF members willing to buy their own place.

Otherwise you have an impossible balancing act of rich/poor/full-time/part-time/fly-in/fly-out to contend with. A capitalist system is best in that scenario where people put their own blood and sweat in to keep their own equity and simply enjoy the pleasure of each others company as a huge side-bonus.

Yeah - creating a livable system would be a pain in the ass.

Many would essentially be employees of the island owner, a few would be longer-stay guests who have location independent income and others might be just friends who could stay for a fee or for free. I would not truly call this an independent community.

This "country within a country option" or truly independent private island would only kick into true survival gear when the world systems collapse. But creating such a mini-country would indeed be no easy feat.

[theoneandonly]

I always tend to look at the real politik option with these types of situations.
Instead of trying to co-opt men into working on some commune Kool-aid style, it is much better to have a system where men are motivated to do their best for the common interest, for their own interest, and stay out of each others faces as much as possible.

Examples of this are business fraternities and meetups etc. Give the younger men guidance and a bit of a push and let them go forward. Everyone is so busy that to come together once every 6 months is more than enough. People stick around and build the community over the longer term. I have seen hunting clubs and industry networks develop like this.

Men mature best on their own path with direct guidance only at crucial moments.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-31-2017 04:02 AM)theoneandonly Wrote:  

I always tend to look at the real politik option with these types of situations.
Instead of trying to co-opt men into working on some commune Kool-aid style, it is much better to have a system where men are motivated to do their best for the common interest, for their own interest, and stay out of each others faces as much as possible.

Examples of this are business fraternities and meetups etc. Give the younger men guidance and a bit of a push and let them go forward. Everyone is so busy that to come together once every 6 months is more than enough. People stick around and build the community over the longer term. I have seen hunting clubs and industry networks develop like this.

Men mature best on their own path with direct guidance only at crucial moments.

Yeah - that is what Roosh tried to initiate with the ReturnOfKings meetup and it resulted in a massive attack. There are already meetups going on, but we should start working together more, if there are synergies.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Just a crazy thought that popped into my head, and sorry for going OT but could you run an area meetup out of a charter bus or a limo?

That would negate the concept of a meeting point that would be ambushed.

Once everyone is on board the host tells the driver to pull up at a location they've secretly picked and everyone piles out. Drinks. Merriment. Uber rides home. Post it on ROK the next day and send the SJWs berserk.

[Tex Cruise]

(05-30-2017 08:12 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 11:02 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

I'd be interested in something like this as a seasonal retreat. Some place in the high desert with a well-stocked whiskey bar and a good firepit where I can go fishing, do some handywork on the property, and read classical literature.

This is probably the most reasonable and realistic option.

As I said in the Entire Town of Tiller, Oregon Up For Sale For $3.8 Million thread a while back...

(03-24-2017 04:35 AM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  

I reckon the best use for Tiller, Oregon (depending on power/water etc) would be as an RVF resort. Just like the tribal meetups, no women allowed.
Members would buy shares. Newbies and members needing a break from city life would be volunteer caretakers. Guests (RVF and ROK posters) could go do manly stuff like hunting and sitting around a campfire. Lectures and guest speakers in the hall, Busch beers and banter at Uncle Kona's House O' Fun... I'd go visit, possibly buy shares.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The upkeep on a whole town would be phenomenal. Believe me when I say you're far better off choosing a town that's not dead (but on the brink) and revitalising it with red-pilled guys. That way you wouldn't be on the hook for an inordinate amount of money off the bat and then find yourself neck deep in repair costs.

Besides. A lot of these projects end up with 100 volunteers and only 5 or 6 of them actually show up. For the poor bastards who sunk in all their money it would be a pretty horrible outcome.

Jetset's idea is still the most viable, although you could combine the two. Find a suitable 100,000 acre ranch serviced by a town that's on its last legs. Moneybags Alpha or a conglomerate of same can buy the ranch. Anyone of lesser means that wants to be close to the action when meetups occur can buy a common house in the town near Rancho del Roosh.

Best of both worlds.

[Tex Cruise]

I wouldn't suggest trying to maintain it as a town as such. My reasoning was that any ranch is probably only going to have limited infrastructure, like a main residence, stables, machinery sheds and fodder storage etc.

An abandoned town would have a bunch of buildings that could be repurposed for far less outlay than constructing guest accommodation, a conference room, Uncle Kona's Busch Beer Bar, and all that stuff from scratch.

It would certainly be handy to have another not dead town nearby though.

[Jetset]

Perhaps another way to go about this would be as a "takeover" of an existing ranch/resort during a low season where they'd otherwise close down.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-31-2017 08:06 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

Perhaps another way to go about this would be as a "takeover" of an existing ranch/resort during a low season where they'd otherwise close down.

I like the way you think.



All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

[TooFineAPoint]

I volunteer to scour Malta, Southern Switzerland, and Northern Italy for an ideal Rooshville Europa location.

[Bland]

Lot of good thoughts, ideas, and discussion here.

Zelcorpion Wrote:

I have thought about something like that.

Yeah, I think several guys on here have probably envisioned something like this. A lot of posts recently seem to almost call out for it. For example, in Roosh's last article there's a section entitled "It takes a village to keep a woman monogamous."

Zelcorpion Wrote:

The only way I see it manifested is when someone of us makes 200+ mio. $, buys a sizable piece of land or an island and invites like-minded men onto the property to live and prosper with his family, or work on various businesses.

Certainly a sole proprietorship/chief model would make several things simpler. However, it could also make other things more complicated down the line. For example, it could lead to problems of succession. I think a joint-stock company/council of elders model would also be viable, but you're right that it would be more complicated initially.

Leonard D Neubache Wrote:

How will you reconcile the sort of lifestyle that someone earning 7 figures a year expects with someone earning 5?

I don't really understand this criticism. Maybe you can clarify. Small towns have wealthy and less well off members and they seem to work fine.
If you're pointing out that a very wealthy member may be able to move his business to the community, while a lawyer might have to do some farming or something if the market for his services isn't large enough, that's a good point. I think there would have to be sacrifices in order to live in the type of community that you want to live in.

theoneandonly Wrote:

It is much better to have a system where men are motivated to do their best for the common interest, for their own interest, and stay out of each others faces as much as possible.
Men mature best on their own path with direct guidance only at crucial moments.

I want something like this not for myself, but for my children. I'm fine with adapting to how modern Western culture is, but I'm extremely hesitant to have children with the way things are. And it seems like things are only going to get worse.

TooFineAPoint Wrote:

Perhaps some way to mitigate future issues would be to have a loose conglomerate of a handful of such communities worldwide, with a club-style membership so that we could move among them all.

This is a good idea.

Jetset Wrote:

I'd be interested in something like this as a seasonal retreat.

I agree with the other posters who think this is the best place to start.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-31-2017 09:13 PM)Bland Wrote:  

...

Leonard D Neubache Wrote:

How will you reconcile the sort of lifestyle that someone earning 7 figures a year expects with someone earning 5?

I don't really understand this criticism. Maybe you can clarify. Small towns have wealthy and less well off members and they seem to work fine.
If you're pointing out that a very wealthy member may be able to move his business to the community, while a lawyer might have to do some farming or something if the market for his services isn't large enough, that's a good point. I think there would have to be sacrifices in order to live in the type of community that you want to live in.

If it were a sort of commune then the disparity between the value of various kinds of contribution would be hard to negotiate.

Alternately if one person buys a town and lets other people live there then they would obviously have expectations on what contributions are made by their tenants. Another complex system of give and take, prone to issues.

Any system of "going Galt" where roughnecks are throwing in with millionaires would have to be premised on individual contribution and individual reward. The millionaire could act as a benefactor in certain social senses but that would have to be an act of charity.

Once you start involving murky assumptions about who owes who what and why, then things start getting ugly fast.

A third option would be to pair off investors with caretakers and choose a district to buy smaller scale acreages in, preferably adjoining. Caretaker arrangements are about as simple as it gets, and even they can be a bit tricky if the owner isn't happy with the output of the tenant, whether because the tenant is lazy or the owner's expectations are too high.

Regardless, that last options would be a good "survivalist" model for people of low and high incomes to work towards a common goal.

[Australia Sucks]

Zelcorpion I am surprised we even have a Rooshv member worth over $100 million. I did not realize we are such a powerful and influential group. That is pretty awesome.

[Australia Sucks]

I think Rooshv needs to take baby steps. Rooshv is good at sharing ideas and information but we need to start sharing more than that in a substantial way before even thinking about having some sort of "ranch", etc

First let's have well established programs of Rooshv couch-surfing (forum members traveling sleep on the couches of other forum members), Rooshv forum members that are business owners or managers posting jobs on here and hiring other forum members, guys giving away free shit (e.g. used furniture or cars they don't need, etc) they do not need, forum members setting each other up with girls (e.g. if a forum member has a girlfriend with hot friends try to set the friends up with other forum members), etc.

I think if Rooshv becomes better at sharing as described above then there will be more readiness for a "ranch/community" of some sort.

[heavy]

Lefty communities go un-harassed.

An RVF community would be targeted (by any number of groups...IRS, FBI, media, media, Soros employees, etc).

To be a real thing, they would have to secede from the U.S.

OP is optimistic. I'm just a realist.

Unless you're just talking about a community with shared values (not necessarily politics), then just go to a smaller town/city.

[JSnow]

It worked for Israel, but would be a pretty tough option. As heavy said, you'd have to be prepared for a constant onslaught.

[Enigma]

Just have a person or group buy a bunch of land and then sell pieces of it to people as they decide to join the community.

Best case scenario, all of the land is eventually sold and the original owners recoup all their money through smaller investments by other members.

They could even make a little money off the top by selling each acre for slightly more than they paid for it, if they so chose.

Worst case scenario, the original owners either just sit on the extra acreage or sell it to another party.

You can buy land in the US for as little as a few hundred dollars per acre in the US.

So, let's say you had a person or a group by an initial 500 acres at $500 a pop (you can get even better deals than that). You're looking at $250,000, which could be financed with a modest downpayment.

And 500 acres would be enough for 100 people to have 5 acres a piece, 50 to have 10 acres, etc.

Then you could build something as simple as $2,000 cabin or as elaborate as a $200,000 house on your property, depending on your budget.

If you put it close enough to a small-ish town, you could just build or buy businesses there, which the community would use. Other than our urge to fuck everything that moves, most small town Americans aren't going to find most of what's discussed here particularly controversial.

Also, people are vastly overestimating the government's willingness or ability to break up something of this nature.

I'd plop it in a fairly rural, forested and mountainous area. US law enforcement is not going to go through the trouble of dealing with that situation over a few dozen shitlords. As long as you're not cooking copious amounts of meth or openly plotting to overthrow the government, you'll be fine.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Sorry to be Captain Raincloud but there are generally laws against buying land and subdividing it without the express permission of the local authorities.

Town planning is a big deal for a reason. Libertarian land laws end in shitfits when 1000 people suddenly move to the newly checkerboarded block of land upstream of the town and start shitting in the river for example.