Sometimes you need to sit on a thought before it becomes something more. Other times, to abuse a Dr. Duke quote, “A thought is just a thought.” Since my wife recently gave me my first son, my thoughts have been on family, unsurprisingly. I plan to tackle several subjects over the course of this article. First, I want to preface this article by saying: only one-hundred years ago, this world was a much different place – where there was a balance between innovation and globalisation, which today has become heavily unbalanced. (Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.) This preface will, I hope, reinforce the bulk of what follows. What will follow? A discussion of intentional communities, as well as organic development. I will make the argument that intentional community is inevitable for our milieu. This will lead to examples of intentional community in the past, an idea of how they were structured, and elements of European social organisation, and/or caste, which have been lost. Potentially to our detriment.
So. My son. As mentioned, he was recently born. That’s been a big deal for me, considering the fact that I had to wade through numerous miscarriages, and a fistful’s worth of desolate, depressed, and infertile years. As you might imagine, five years of disappointment might give a man time to think about what is important. It gives him time to plan, to *intend.* Now, an added factor in the emotional turmoil, is that I am the last blood son in my family. Were it to occur I die without children, it would mean there would be none other in my bloodline to carry the name forward. Sure, the family name would continue, elsewhere, and in a way. Unacceptable. So, to that end, I’ve had a keen mind for genealogy.
Very recently I began reading my Grandfather’s biography. It has proven quite enlightening. Nevermind that for his wit, I might as well have written it myself. Beyond this, the world he describes is mystifying. Local. Community as a word and concept means something. Contrast this to now. What is a community? Is it an online fan squad dedicated to consuming specific Product? Is it an online gaggle of perverts dedicated to indulging a peculiar fetish? Is it a pack of idiots dedicated to a political ideology who have never put their boots to the ground to leave mom’s basement? No. This is one of the perennial lies told to us by “them.”
My Grandfather had to commit to interstate travel, but this was an oddity for his time. In his town, most people were hard pressed to leave. Why leave? The milk man delivered milk. You made a weekly grocery day to go up-town and buy your sundries. Other families simply hit the local markets on their way home. Often times, you could barter a little on the side to save money. People still traded service for product and saw action as equivalent, if not superior, to fiat pressed economic symbols of false fiscal solvency. The dollar is a lie, and always has been – in case I was not clear.
The kinds of people who lived in these communities were predictable. My Grandfather grew up in Massachusetts, born to a lower middle class father. Our family belonged for ages to the Anglo managerial class, well off, but no tycoons. We were skilled negotiators and spokesmen, organised and clever. We therefore lived in communities which attracted people of that calibre. In those communities people spoke with a particular cadence. In his youth, my Grandfather began schooling in Maine. He went to the interior, to the County, where he worked with the potato farmers during his off season. He developed an affinity for life in Maine, it suited his speed. He made an intentional decision to eventually settle in Maine. However, the world in which my grandfather lived was a world of organic development. Organic communities which sprang up around the intentions of their (admittedly) forgotten settlers.
For a time, he raised his children in Massachusetts, but eventually decided that Maines grass was greener. He purchased land on an island off the coast, and summered there. His children would all grow up and live in Maine, though some (the adopted ones) would leave for exotic and foreign places like Florida, or Ohio.
At any rate, the point here is that (presumably) at least until the Immigration Reforms, America was comprised of intentional communities. There were in fact, blueprints. It’s true. The early colonists wished to maintain the ethnic makeup of their enclaves. Why not? They were intentional communities after all. The United States of America was founded by consent among the early settlers. Only later did disarray and disunion spoil the salad bowl, and break the melting pot. One of the major questions that I find myself failing to answer (because the sorts of people who ask, don’t want to know the answer) is “Why can’t we go back there?” Glenn Beck, of former Fox News fame, used to say; ‘The answer to 9/11 was the Spirit of 1776…’ or something like that. What they forget, is that the Spirit of 1776 was still English, it wasn’t even generically Anglo like yours truly, the author of this sad commentary on the pitiful estate of things.
These old communities of intention gave way to the organic communities of my grandfather’s time. In his day, your State meant something. A Yankee was a breed apart from those below the Mason-Dixon line. Even among Yankees there were differences, the rivalry between Massachusetts and Maine was very real, and New Hampshire never had any friends because the only people who ever went there, did so for cheap booze, and an escape from sales tax. Vermont, they made great cheese, and I am not convinced Rhode Island was ever actually a State, because (to my knowledge) nothing historic ever happened there. Life was different, wherever you were. I can only speak to Maine and Massachusetts, because that is what is in my blood. Massachusetts was industry, but Maine was agrarian.
Contrast this to today. There is no intention left. Intention is regarded with suspicion. Unless of course you advocate only for the most insidious of things, in which case the enemy inside the gate is happy to allow you all the intentions your failing heart can muster. The result here is that the organically developed communities have disintegrated because the only structure to society that has ever existed as glue, has been intention. My thinking here begins with conversations I have had with my wife. Being a woman (and a sensitive one) she is adverse to the thick-skinned nature that being married to a political dissident requires. Always and forever, she searches for alternatives to the (at times ungainly) certitudes that my political milieu brings. She does this in the hopes of escaping the negativity, the depression, the isolation, and uncertainty, that accompanies dissidence. While she confesses there is a logic to my claims, of course she hates the negativity it invites, and cannot emotionalise a world in which there are unresolvable conflicts which necessitate hard, and maybe eventually, cold choices.
One of her hobbies is ‘researching alternative lifestyles.’ -Please note: when I use this phrase, I use it as it is intended; as denoting a style of life. (Contrast with homosexuality which is, in fact, a deathstyle. A deathstyle you endorse with your hard earned taxes.) Among the chiefmosts of her interests here, lies with ‘intentional communities.’ I have thrown the term about What is an intentional community? I suppose this depends upon who you ask. But a clinical definition might well be: You create a community around intent, rather than allow for organic or spontaneous generation. As we shall see, organically developed communities are well and fine – but the problem with them lies with the influence of macrocosmic infrastructure. Globohomo developed organically, because the intentionally globalised community that spawned it had commercial interests to cover. We can argue until the cows come home who all benefited from the change, and why from an economic standpoint it does, and does not fit. Maybe we will.
On the Sperg Box I wrote an essay called Amerimutt, if you have the time I would encourage you to go there and read that. In that article I cover the long march of history that went into forging New England, and the other less immediately understandable places of America. (I am a Yankee, I can be no other.) Relative to the idea covered in that essay, which is the FACT that early New England was an extension of the English European Folk Soul; is the idea of the tension and interplay between intentional and organic communities.
We can think of general European history in such terms. The intentions of early civilisations largely shaped the organic development of successor nations. Example: The Romans utilised Greek intentions to formulate their Empire. Rome fell. The Germans (whose spawn are the English, and to a degree the French) would go on to use Roman intention to formulate their Empires and Kingdoms. So, now we come to the meat of my article. I shall now address my intended target audience. As this article appears on the Männerblog, my aim is to appeal to potential querants seeking admission into a local Bund.
You must be aware that the Männerbunde are intentional communities. Every individual Bund has a unique character. As time allows, the character of these Bünde will only become more intentionalised, regionalised, and organic. We will explore why by tapping the veins of history in the coming paragraphs. For now, be you querant, or else Initiate, Fellow, Brother, or Councilman – take stock of your intentions. With every action you make within the context of your Bund, give mind to intention. Act in accordance with the society you wish to spawn.
So much of our troubles stem from uncertainty and paralysis. It is the kind of paralysis discussed by the great Irish writers during the troubles and beyond. (But really, was Ireland ever *un*troubled?) For those of you who have read ‘Waiting for Godot,’ you know exactly what I mean. So much of our paralysis stems from this: That individuals have no intention and wait thus for “leaders” and “principes” to fulfil them with purpose. There can be no purpose without intention, this is a paradox without resolution. Whomever reads this, you must pay me this heed: Imagine and envision, no matter how crudely, a culture you wish to succeed you. Even if you must borrow vision, it is something that must be required of you. I promise you this: if no other brother haunts your daydreams and demands intellectual toll, I shall demand this if you should you ever set foot in any of the domains I control. What’s more, someday you, or perhaps your children; shall thank me. What’s more than this, I dream of the day you demand the same of me, and from this the intellectual power of our movement will triplicate by the equanimity of intellectual distributive action.
Alas alack, I must now digress. In order to discuss the cascade of organic development of communities, we must discuss how they were first intentioned. Allow us now to go to Greece. Ancient Greece was a unique place, some would say the cradle of civilisation. I am not here to dispute those claims, though I might know a few arguments to the point. What will not be disputed is the influence, even second hand, levied by the Aryan Hellenes.
The basic unit of organisation in Greece flowed thusly. (Notice the root of organisation and organic is the same.) The Oikos was the simplest unit of social stratification. We translate Oikos as household, but to the Greeks, the concept was holistic. The Greek house was not merely a constructive facet. The Oikos was land, property, as well as all that gathered there. The Oikos included the family, the servants, and the animals upon the land. Within the Oikos was hierarchy. Family was utmost, and the family had a head – normally a father. Servants had specific (if limited) rights and responsibilities, and then there were animals which existed as property. The Oikos was a part of a larger structure called the Polis. The Polis is difficult to render in English for it was neither a city nor a state, but was ultimately both. When one speaks of City-State, they may well imagine the Polis. Now, like the Oikos, a Polis had legal recognition as an entity with character.
Why is this relevant? Because this system of organisation relates to an archetypical form of social governance, which was made famous by the Romans, whom history regards as the immediate successor to Greece. The Romans had an acutely defined tribal system. This tribal structure was a carryover from earlier “barbarian” Europe. (People forget that the city founded by Romulus resembled a Germanic warband, and indeed, the Italic tribes were scarcely removed from their Germanic cousins in those days; glorifying engagement in cattle raids, wife stealing, and so forth.) What ultimately changed and separated Rome, was Her adoption of the Greek conceptualisation of intentional organisation. It is potentially this one inspiration which separated Rome’s wheat from Italic chaff. Of course, the inspiration was indirect and not immediate. In the beginning, Romans took their cues from the Etruscans who themselves were shaped and moulded by Graecian ideologies. Nevertheless, Rome began to treat the STATE as an entity. The State came to be as the Greek Polis had been; a living organism or entity with considerable needs, strengths, and weaknesses. Contrasted to the Germanic tribal model which ended at the tribe this was an immense improvement. Rome became a Goddess, as she was a city. It is difficult for us to imagine due to our level of atomisation. However, for the average Roman, the City was alive. The citizens, with their Families, Patrons, and Tribes, were organelles in a larger structure. The true Christian Churches, being Catholic and Orthodox Communions, maintain a semblance of this model. They of course exercise it spiritually, as opposed to racially.
Now we come to the ultimate crux of my intention for this essay. The thing I think society solely misses: Hierarchy, real and actual hierarchy. In virtually every European civilisation there are equivalent models. But to the modern American audience I shall render them down to this; Family / Clan / Tribe / Nation / Race. I think the first three are the most important, as the last two in the American experiment are exceptionally difficult to quantify efficiently. (Indeed most American Nationalists prefer to skip Nation and land on Race.)
Family: This should be obvious, but due to the casualties of modernity, not everyone grew up with, and thus understands, the meaning of family. The nuclear family is what is intended. How shall we understand nuclear family? There is a nucleus, comprised of married parents, who are surrounded by dependents. These are presumably their (HUMAN) children, however, in healthy societies there were often grandparents on retainer to help the next generations.
Clan: Extended families often stuck together. A clan would be a network of families, they would presumably be relations, but obviously in this atomised Clown World, that is more of a five-year plan. These families would maintain proximal relationships to each-other, and render assistance and encouragement. Say what you will of the Amish, they are still clannish. Famed for their Barn-Raising parties, the Amish gathered the clans to do the work of making *intentional* communities.
Tribe: Now we gather into higher purposes. Tribes, historically, were networks of clans organised along socio-political lines. This has displayed itself differently throughout history, but in Rome, an example was that of Plebeians and Patricians; these were the consolidated tribal networks established by Romulus. In feudal Europe, the differences among regional peoples were relative to tribal status. Example: In Germany a Bavarian and Prussian might have both been German, but they were different tribes. Typically, Royal Families came from the tribes which held the most power. Example: In later England, the English were scandalised to learn that some of their royalty spoke German. They were offended because they felt as though they had been invaded (again) by false monarchy. Even in America, there was still a tribal identity which persisted until roughly WWII, which by many accounts heralded the beginning of repugnant globalism. In America, the Anglo, the Irish, and the Italian, all maintained strong tribal affiliations.
Nation: A collective of Tribes unified by geography. Sometimes confused or blurred with ethnicities. Example: The German Nation, until Hitler’s Reich, was a collective of squabbling tribes, which had existed in pockets since Rome. They spoke variations of German, and were more alike than not when compared to the more unified French. Most European Nation-States have similar backgrounds, with Italy being heavily regionalised between north and south.
Race: A collective of nationalities which are comprised of compatible ethnicities. Arguably the singular most divisive concept to be introduced to political milieus. When one speaks of the White Race for instance, it is assumed he imagines the collective embodiment of the tribes and nations that form the race. English, Germans, Scandinavians of course, and presumably the Mediterranean nations as well. The Slavics are contested but generally included – especially in America.
I make these distinctions because it is of paramount importance to make for intellectually concise, and emotionally clear decisions, when opting for Intentional Community. It is a unique and precarious situation, some might say precipice into purity spiral, which allows for a community to self-select. But this is ultimately what we mean by self-determination. It means deciding who we let in, and what we want these people to look like in ten or fifteen years, as Bundeskultur begins to settle, develop, and specialise.
If we compare ourselves to Rome, there is a poignant learning lesson. The Männerbund ceases to be a mere collective indicator of affiliation. The Bund must be understood as an entity, with specific needs, strengths, weaknesses, and gifts. If you are considering inquiry into one of our Bünde, take heed that this must be the direction in which we go. Our demands are real. Sweat and blood, maybe a few tears; are all required. We are communities after all, not vague online affiliations.
As time moves on, Brothers and Fellows will develop real friendships. Already these are developing the beginnings of Clannish relations. As for Bünde themselves? They are Tribal, make no mistake. The striations have already begun. We have enclaves in New England, (undisputed masters of America, we are) as well as elsewhere. Even Canada, if you’re cuck enough to believe Canada’s not a hologram being emitted by Johnny Monoxide’s incredibly powerful alienware laptop.
If you sit by yourself, and are brave, as one of my friends in my Bund is; you will admit that the goal is to turn this increasingly tribal network into a national one. After all, America used to be a Nation in the true sense. Now we are a country, and that is sad, a mere country with no real unity. This admission has demoralised some of our brothers to woeful degrees. Nevertheless, the ideal is real. The end result of family is nation. Just as the Oikos became the Polis. Intention breeds organic development. Think of these things.
Recently to the writing of this article, there emerged a podcast by the name of Aristogenesis. This podcast (affiliate of the Nordic Resistance Movement) advocated for the development of a new Ethnos by following the historical patterns of the old. This message (I think) is especially relevant; especially for American Nationalists and Dissidents. Our faith in the system is so heavily damaged that the American Identity, the American Nation, may well be damaged beyond repair. I do not believe this to be the case, but for many Brothers enrolled in my chapter of the Männerbunde, this is exactly the case. Men in their twenties never knew an America that wasn’t ruled by despair. This alone makes the necessity of foresight and conscious affiliation, all the more vital and necessary in the development of an identity we can be proud to give to our children, who will go on to marry children of other Bundsmen; and complete the transition of Clan and Tribe, into Nation.