Patriot Group to Build a 3,000 Acre Armed Compound

Fortified community that will have 10-20,000 armed residents

Fortified community that will have 10-20,000 armed residents

Zachary Cole

January 15, 2013

There has been a lot of talk about gun control, the second amendment, and how to approach tragedies involving firearms in the United States. Some suggested that we ban certain guns or outlaw them flat out. Others say that gun control is the problem and instead we should arm up more citizens. However, some people have formed a solution outside of the typical narrative.

A patriot group called the Citadel is laying the groundwork to construct a 3,000 acre city in western Idaho (Benewah County) that will be able to accommodate 3,500- 7,000 families. The city could potentially have a population of 10- 20,000 people if the average household has three. According to the group over 200 families have already signed up for the project and this was before they even advertised the community. The Citadel also says that they will be purchasing the land this year and will be breaking ground soon after that.

The fortified city will not only be in a remote area but will be upon a mountain or a raised area of land. The project map of the compound shows an outer and inner wall with corresponding gates, inner and outer defensive towers, perimeter housing, neighborhoods, power and water stations, farmers market, an amphitheater, schools, firearms Museum, reflecting pool, a firearms factory, and the town center in which I guess is going to be for communal purposes.

The main emphasis of the group is to “voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of rightful liberty.” The obvious motivation of this project is to build “an armed community to protect their liberty” from an oppressive government. The Citadel website also states the main ideals that potential residents should have in common are “patriotism, pride in American exceptionalism, our proud history of liberty as defined by our founding Fathers, and physical preparedness to survive and prevail in the face of natural catastrophes…or man-made catastrophes.”

The Citadel says that the community is open to all (i.e. races) as long as people share their common ideals and causes. The fortified city also aims to provide privacy for its residents and tourists in particular will not be able to see within the community (although they will not be barred from visiting). Another feature that the project has is the three-part application process that serves to gauge the compatibility of each family to the community. Their website says, “Approved applicants receive a lifetime lease (paid off in only 30 years). No credit check. No background check. Zero down payment. Zero property taxes.”

Once a family becomes a part of the Citadel, they may take a voluntary pledge “to follow the footsteps of our founding fathers by swearing to one another our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor to defend one another and liberty against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It should be duly noted that just as families are free to live there, they’re also free to leave at anytime. This has to be mentioned since some may immediately associate this with a cult compound like Jonestown or Waco.

While I like the idea of creating a self sustainable community with others who have common interests, it’s hard not to think of the Ruby Ridge Massacre which just so happen to have taken place in Idaho. Randy and Vicki Weaver also had ideas of separating from society and preparing for an apocalyptic scenario. Although what happened at Ruby Ridge didn’t involve a huge number of people, it did have some similarities in regards to location, a descent amount of land, and hostilities towards any encroachment of liberties.

It will be interesting to see how this community develops and if it is a success or not. Of course, there are already leftwing Democrats types using the typical meme of “racism” and “preservation of white America” to scare off people from living in a communal setting similar to this. I have no problem with forming communities with like-minded people (although there should be safeguards from xenophobia). It is clear, at least on paper, that the city is not being built to separate the races but rather is an attempt to distance themselves from the long arm of the Federal government. Whether one likes their views or not is irrelevant, many people of diverse backgrounds in the US are considering the idea of building their own communities. Anyone that has their hand to the plow and their ears to the ground will tell you that.

Matrix of Terms: False Left-Right Paradigm

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Our first entry in the Matrix of Terms Series we will define what a false left-right paradigm is. In order to understand what this false paradigm is we must comprehend how a true paradigm is defined.

According to anthropology and political science, a left-right paradigm is a natural gravitation in society for people to divide into ideological opposites. A major proponent of this theory is a social anthropologist named Rodney Needham from Britain who believed that this was a basic human device. One can do further study into this subject with Needham’s 1973 work “Right and Left: Essays in Dual Symbolic Classification” (University of Chicago).

A false left-right paradigm is essentially two opposing groups who give the illusion of hopelessly polarizing worldviews but in reality, they share common goals in the overall scope of things (such as the direction of our country towards a global system). Usually these groups disagree on smaller divisive matters, which maybe real, to manipulate and rally the public behind one side or the other. The basic idea behind this practice is to keep people divided, powerless, and to maintain overall influence within their sphere. The Roman Empire was experts at this tool and although they no longer physically rule, their concepts still live. The false paradigm masterfully uses important issues like abortion, gay marriage, entitlement programs, etc. to distract the masses while they bulldoze bills, executive orders, contracts, etc. that usually constrict our freedom and destroy the sovereignty of our country.

The groups that use this tactic also are funded or influenced by many of the same organizations and institutions. It should be no surprise then, when one looks at former associations, donations, and other forms of support we find international financiers, corporations, etc. either running these groups or being benefitted in some way by them. A good example of this is in the European political system we see former Goldman-Sachs officials filling in positions of unelected power to help fix the financial crisis they helped create. The same example is true in America. Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and people from the Federal Reserve fill in positions of authority. A simple investigation of presidential appointments within various administrations and with whom they surround themselves exposes a gaggle of technocrats and elitists.

The most common examples we see of the false left-right paradigm in Western politics are Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberal vs. Conservative, and as the term suggest Left wing vs. Right wing. Nowhere is the dynamic tension more apparent then what we see in the mainstream news. Many times, we see video clips of congressional debates or talk radio rants criticizing one group over another but once the cameras are gone, the doors are closed, the real nature of their relationships are revealed. A good example of this was the issue of raising the debt ceiling. When no one was quite as concerned about it there was a consensus between the two parties that it would have to happen. However, just as little as five months later the Republicans made a spectacle of it. This was nothing more then a dog and pony show because Harry Reid said earlier, “I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt…They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt.” So there we have it, they knew they had to do this, they knew the Democrats had taken the dissension last time, and it was the Republicans turn to do the same. The false paradigm performs this same theatrics on any issue they want to steer. One side plays the “good guys” and the other side plays the “bad guys” depending on whose turn it is.

If we were to put forth a concise definition, it might read something like this: “A false left-right paradigm is a political stratagem that uses people’s natural propensity to belong to a like-minded group to drive public opinion and to change policies and laws to benefit their handler’s interests.