Select Page

In my fictional timeline for the future, I saw the emergence of America as a Social Republic ruled by and for the Progressives. Everyone else was just trying to get low or get out, resulting in the ultimate dismemberment of the USA, with the Social Republic of America remaining one of the larger pieces of the pie. A weakened American political state was invaded from the south and via an amphibious assault of New Jersey. 

Will this flag replace old glory?

But for a time in my story this Social Republic was all of America. The thing that tripped everyone’s wire was when, after the SRA was declared, the Constitution was shelved and the states as entities abolished.  Counties were organized into administrative regions with a Federal Administrator over them. The fiction of democracy was retained, but since any kind of disruptive speech, as I saw it in 1982, was outlawed the two parties were essentially identical. 

I am not suggesting this is literally what is coming.  But doesn’t it look like if the Progressives had their way we’d have this “Social Republic?” Will the UN flag replace Old Glory? It is possible that the UN flag will take a higher place in our future as things are going.

Let’s just keep the term Social Republic for convenience and say it typifies something like what the Progressives want. They want a monopoly of all power, be it social or political,  economic of military. They love the fiction of debate and freedom,  and even democracy,  but to have those things they would have to not only tolerate but respect their opponents and even consider that their opponents might actually win if the playing field was level, which it never is. 

But Progressives are not quite as ruthless and cruel as Communists.  Deep down there remains something of their idealism that prevents them from going full on dictator. I know it doesn’t seem that way, but they do have a few soft spots.

Progressives respect ethnicity and culture. Now, I know this a lot more today then I did back in 1982 when I first started writing about this. But in my fictional history I saw that Christians who had adopted a new ethnicity and who built their own social and economic networks by and for members of their ethnicity were treated like some sort of a tribe. The Progressives did not interfere with the internal workings of this Society and its dispersed intentional communities, much the same way they respect the Amish and Native American tribes or even the Muslims who, in a wierd way, Progressives see as an ethnicity. 

This may be the way to survive and thrive. If we simply say we have religious rights and form ourselves according to our religion, this will not be respected. But if we are part of an ethnicity that has its own distinct lifestyle,  even if it is based on religion, the Progressives are willing to at least give us free space. Call it gaps for freedom, places outside of the public realm where external interference is minimal or not existent. 

In my story this Society becomes recognized as a “domestic nation” and wins favor with the SRA government. Within its communities and “lodges” it’s own socio-cultural and even socioeconomic norms and standards apply. Perhaps something like this is in our future, considering how closely the times we live in resemble the timeline I developed for my fictional history. 

The thing is that ethnicity can be intentional.  It is a deeply unifying factor because it involves a similar lifestyle in details that are more exact than, say, universal minimal standards of Christian doctrine, which can include people from many cultures. While an ethnicity can be based on Christian beliefs, it answers more specific questions about things like style of dress,  family obligations, food and diet,  even architecture, which one must have in common for close proximity cooperation.  As an example, in general, two Christians from vastly different cultures would not necessarily want to get married.If you want to have a group of Christians who live near one another and act as a single household that eats together a lot and shares a lot of resources, there are very practical reasons why you will want them to have a very similar culture,  including food culture or specific ways of raising children. 

Any group of Christians can form a group and over time become close knit. But that single group of Christians will eventually develop its own internal socio-cultural and socioeconomic norms. Everyone will have to learn to compromise or seek God together, unless they start with a similar socio-cultural value system right away. But no group of people,  including Christians,  can form a close knit corporate bond if its members do not have a shared socio-cultural identity and set of values and norms.

While I envision and write about a ready-made intentional ethnicity with its own socio-cultural and socioeconomic standards,  norms, and values which people who join adopt, this whole idea of intentional ethnicity and creating tribes and peoples will take different paths,  if indeed this is what happens. And as people realize that being part of a tribe or national people gives you standing to have your own free space with such people, it will become something people naturally seek out. 

I have had what I feel is the misfortune of being able to see this necessity well before it becomes so acutely felt that people are willing to take a step into this realm of intentional nationhood. I propose that, considering how things are going, it won’t be long before people, especially Christians, start to figure out that being part of a recognized tribe or national people is the best defense against losing their religious or other freedoms.  

Now this is where what I have seen and now propose really matters. You see, you can’t form a tribe or nation of people if the limits of your tribe are a few dozen families in your home town. This will not get you the coveted recognition. But when people adopt the new nationality I propose, or that others might propose, intentionally, and when that number is tens of thousans of people,  that tribe will have a very real chance to obtain some form of recognition which will grant it cultural autonomy and the ability to have its own socio-cultural and socioeconomic norms. 

We are all Christians, but that is a very broad identity. While we recognize that we are a spiritual and distinct nation of one People under Christ, this is too broad to receive recognition by such people as the Progressives who, you might want to remember,  consider themselves to be Christians in many cases. 

To say you cannot do something for religious reasons or that you want to have an association only for Christians is not enough as far as the Progressives are concerned. It should be, but it isn’t.  But to say “my culture prevents me from doing this “, why, that’s totally fine. This is the reason why Muslims and Native American tribes are welcome in the Democrat coalition despite their rather more socially conservative values.

In my story, the Society, which represents this national people, actually ends up voting for the Democrats solely on the basis that they will recognize it as a domestic nation. The Republicans refuse. I’m not saying that is going to happen,  but I think I had some prescience about the mindset of Progressives. 

Progressives respect national ethnic peoples. They have much more tolerance for the internal cultural autonomy of ethnicities than they do for any religious body of people.

Progressivism is a flood. We are not going to stop it. We have to learn how we can shelter ourselves in islands of freedom,  which I think are groups and intentional communities organized as part of a large national people, even as the flood washes over the land. It won’t last forever. We will still be here and we will be able to pick up the pieces of the mess they create when it passes.

But if we do not use the time we have left to form national peoples rooted in our Christian virtues and beliefs but who can live and act as a close knit body of people, then who knows what will happen. Perhaps the Christian witness will be taken down to a remnant. It will only make matters worse for everyone.

A few points:

These national peoples could be regional or national in distribution but they cannot be smaller than 10,000 people if they wish to gain standing.  (Yes there are Native tribes that are much smaller but they are part of a much larger ethnicity, i.e.  “Native American.”)

Their politics must be limited to getting recognition of status and internal socio-cultural and socioeconomic autonomy. Taking partisan sides over issues that run afoul of the Progressives is a bad idea and will brand that group as a political opponent. The American people won’t resist or fight the Progressives and they won’t have your back. (The fact the Progressives have an advantage in every election should be proof enough that the American people in the whole have lost their will to fight.)

While they must be rooted in the Gospel and Christian orthodoxy, these people need detailed socio-cultural norms and standards, as well as their own mythology and traditions, including dress,  food, and style of worship, that go well beyond universals of the Christian faith. They need to be different from the prevalent culture and even, to some extent, dress differently, or at least for special occasions.  This is proof of unique ethnicity and it will be important for establishing cultural autonomy.

They will need to have some form of intentional community and shared lifestyle that requires much closer relationships beyond the nuclear family than is the norm today.  They might even need to totally share resources as this is the only kind of community not governed by the fair housing act. But there are other alternatives as well, including mixed housing owned by members but also available to the public with common areas from all residents and social quarters open only to Society members. In short, people will have to draw together and share living space to varying degrees to save money, for mutual support, and to establish proof of their own cultural separateness from the outside culture. 

As they are Christian nations of people, they will have to balance the need to establish an insular identity with the need for Christian unity and the need to reach others for Christ. If they establish communities that help and serve other Christians,  if they attend local fellowships and congregate with any Christian in their vicinity,  and if they deliberately go out and evangelize, they will not become isolated and inward focused.

What I am talking about is what may be necessary if or when the Progressives have their way. Whoever wins the election, the march toward something like the SRA is going to continue. Having our own national identities and organizing fraternal societies around these identities, will enable us to carve out gaps for freedom in the cultural sphere where even Progressives refuse to intrude and where perhaps God has intended they not intrude.