SpectacularOptical has outlined some of the weaknesses of homesteading with regards to our political situation. My previous post unintentionally came across as though I thought homesteading was the only path forward. I do think Covert Parallelism is our only path forward, but homesteading may or may not be a key part of that depending on people’s circumstances. Either way, whether by homestead or not, I do believe it is important for us to have a significant portion of ‘our guys’ growing food.
Our industry-dependent society has placed us in a historically unique position in which less than 1% of the general population are farmers. Historically, this number was closer to 90%. Most dissidents agree that our industrial civilization is growing more unstable; should this prediction come to fruition, we will need to increase the percentage of the population which is involved in the production of food. This is especially pertinent for a movement with traditionalist undertones. Ultimately, whether or not this food is produced under something labelled a ‘homestead’ is less important than the fact that the food is produced in a future-proof manner and that our community has secure access to it.
One of the obvious weaknesses of homesteading is that not everyone is able to afford land: gathering the money and resources to acquire land with property on it could take decades. If all dissidents decided to move to the countryside, we would be more widely dispersed and thus less able to act as a highly organized minority to apply pressure on the system or convert others as is standard in historically successful political revolts. Also, homesteading may not necessarily form the basis of a parallel economy because local trade is not equivalent to insular trade within a rebel community.
Unless you have a family member with a spare property you can use to grow food, the unaffordability of land is a significant hurdle. Thankfully, agricultural land without a house is significantly cheaper than land with a house and can be bought for about £10,000/ acre. Leasing farmland is another more affordable option, averaging about £200/acre/year in the UK (or even less for smaller urban government allotments). One long-term strategy is to pull a Woodlander: buy a piece of woodland-zoned property, discretely build a house on it and utilize the 7-year rule to break free from the clutch of the overreaching government. Of course, these land-use options are less available to those living in a major cities.
But is it really worth it? Should we really move out of the cities and invest all this time, energy, money and resources into hobby farming?! I think one’s decision on this matter depends on how bad they think SHTF will be. If you think the doomsayers are exaggerating then perhaps it’s better to stay in the city. If you think the food shortages, civil unrest and technocratic takeover will be very serious, you may want to make your exit plan. Ultimately, moving to the countryside is a defensive move.
To be clear, renting out a few acres and growing a noteworthy amount of food on it as a side-hustle would take a significant amount of effort. If you are successful in your efforts producing food, you could pressure-can or freeze-dry to preserve your surplus many years into the future. The skill acquisition could prove priceless. Despite these benefits, I would say the cost-benefit analysis would only make sense for someone who 1.) takes the prospects of food shortages very seriously, 2.) wants to make a full-time business out of it or 3.) has significant extra money to spare. I happen to fall into the first two categories, which explains my bias (still working on the third).
There are other means of producing value in a parallel economy besides farming which should not be discounted. However, farming is unique relative to these other sectors in the sense that once a permaculture-style farm is setup, the land becomes somewhat of an autonomous generator of physical wealth with relatively few low-cost inputs, all while maintaining relative independence from the industrial sector and international trade. You can’t say this about other trades. A carpenter converts wood into something of higher value and a tailor converts wool into clothing; but a regenerative farmer essentially generates the physical product itself (could even be wood or wool) from what naturally occurs on the land, forming the primary root of a supply chain. Trades such as carpentry, tailoring, electrical, plumbing and many others – though critical – are vulnerable in the event of downturn due to their dependence on an upstream supply chain. A content creator or software developer creates information but not physical products, leaving them similarly vulnerable in the event of social collapse. The bottom line is there is a reason why the current elites are buying all the farmland: control over land is control over people.
Retreat to the countryside is not the be-all-and-end-all of victory; it is primarily a defensive posture. Sometimes to win a war you have to retreat in a battle. We need to form civilizational refuges and safe-havens for our people, ideally in strategic locations which take advantage of geography. The mindset of this defensive rural posture is to slowly accumulate generational wealth, numbers (through breeding) and positional advantage to the extent we can. Then, we can make other moves – perhaps an opening will present itself. It’s a marathon run, not a sprint, and this war may ultimately be fought over generations.
The critique of there being lower concentration of dissidents in the countryside making them less capable of applying systemic pressure is countryside is valid. As Academic Agent has pointed out, all significant political revolts come top-down from a highly organized minority counter-elite, not bottom-up through the actions of majority populist uprisings.
But if a vanguard were to successfully overthrow the current elite, what would happen next? Likely, an outright shunning by the international community and aggressive sanctions. This would not would work out too well for a country like England which imports about half of its food. A counter-elite takeover is a risky and offensive strategy in contrast to the relative defensive posture of farmsteading, and should be recognized as such. Perhaps it would be best executed only once we had a certain level of autonomous control over key economic sectors. I’ll also mention that the direct applicability of other successful political movements in history may be less than usual considering our relatively unique situation.
The concept of being a ‘highly-organized minority’ is undoubtedly key for the movement’s success, including with regards to parallelism. A rural lifestyle will likely lead one to becoming more intertwined within their local community, but does not necessitate a deeper interplay within one’s political community. But we shouldn’t purity spiral too much: making money off of normies in the local area is still preferable to being system-dependent. Also, an insular parallel economy is still possible if we are willing to trade at a distance across county/ state borders. Regardless, ruralism should be accompanied with the raising of plenty of children who share our value system which will increase the number of ‘our guys’ in the local area.
Homesteading is certainly not for everyone. Nonetheless, it appears likely that our society will need to increase the proportion of people growing food. It is telling that the ruling class is pushing for the exact opposite: they are paying farmers to quit. They want less people growing food in their effort to gain power. Having a significant portion of ‘our guys’ involved in food production is a good defensive position but whether or not this is the best use of resources in the context of people’s unique circumstances is certainly up for debate. The concept of having safe havens scattered across our nations out of the watchful technocratic Eye of Sauron is an appealing one but does not necessitate a win condition. Other forms of economic activity should not be discounted but their relative weaknesses should be acknowledged. My next post will delve deeper into the types of economic activity one might consider to successfully integrate themselves within a dissident parallel economy.