I chose Africa, specifically Kenya. I know nothing about life in Africa nor in Kenya, so maybe I am completely wrong. But given your criteria...
Kenya is both on the ocean and mountainous, with forests being plentiful inland. Personally, I prefer a warm climate, but, at least according to Wikipedia, Kenya offers varying temperatures depending on where you settle.
I realize of course that Kenya/Africa would be a complete culture change, full of both flora and fauna which I can only assume would be unfamiliar to you, but that's half the fun.
Dear Gavin. Thank you for this wonderful post/poll. I am eventually getting to it, now we are into April! This is something very close to my heart, though unlikely to happen for us bar some miracle… so this is great to get my teeth into. Your criteria are fairly flawless and I’d be happy to live almost anywhere that met them. In terms of the poll, I surprised myself. Sometimes opting for more familiar places rather than using other criteria. I am a Northern European and funnily enough I would struggle without any seasons - I know this as I spent several formative years living in Colombia in South America as a child, which I loved, but I did miss the seasons. We were equatorial there. However that experience has itself informed my other choices…. South America and Central America (I spent 8 months in Costa Rica - astonishingly gorgeous place and people). On that note, I have heard remarkable things about the energetic properties of Nicaraguan sandy beaches when it comes to counteracting 5G and that alone is enough for me to desire to have my whole family barefoot there, picturing my children barefoot on that beach makes me want to pack my bags with no plan or money! A communal measure of real self sufficiency is the dream is it not - but other considerations need to be suitability to the terrain and climate, surroundings, family needs etc. I see lithium deposits in South America are considerable, which I didn’t know, and gives Nicaragua another advantage. To cap it off I went Nordic region….. the expansiveness and beauty draws me, and the impression that perhaps people will more readily leave you to get on with what you want to? This could be a false impression. Thanks again!
I want to live with my family. i cannot go anywhere they are not. So, i could. not take the quiz. I will stay where i am, maybe a bit closer to the forest. i wish people would stop paving up everything. I use to be right by a forest. so annoying.
I would prefer to be a nomad. With small parcels (1/2 acre or so) from central yukon down through the deserts of bc, Washington, oregon, SE Utah, arizona, chihuahua and baja.
While I like the idea of a nomadic ecologically literate human (having the potential to leave "regenerative ripple effects" in their wake as they travel and engage in the process the indigenous people describe as "Hwteyqnut-t" out in BC) you totally subverted the rules of my poll with your unapproved answer!
Darn you poll rebels, drawing outside the lines and refusing to comply! Well, I guess that is what I should expect given I write about refusing to comply so much :)
I do appreciate the comment even if you are a poll rule breaker :)
For more on the term I mentioned above (Hwteyqnut-t) which involves the traditional intentional movement of organisms from one place to another to enrich biodiversity and create permanent self-perpetuating food systems read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/regenerative-ocean-gardening-kelp
I didn’t find my 7 acres of paradise in your survey because I would have 3 criteria—no noise pollution, no air/water pollution, no extreme weather. I really don’t think such a place exists in our world anymore. Because of that I’d say we need about 300 acres to create a little bubble where all that is at least at a minimum. Though we are in rural Texas, where there’s a saying about plots like ours of a measly 40 or 50 acres: “That will buy you a front yard.” 😆
And we have all of the above, extreme weather, loads of noise pollution from the sky, and loads of air pollution from the Gulf of Mexico and water pollution from farmland and geoengineering/weather mod happening regularly.
Well said regarding the prolific sonic, particulate and artificial meteorological pressures. Here in southern Ontario light pollution from the giant government grow shows is also a huge problem.
I was mainly going with 7 as that is all we can afford in a small number of places here in "Canada" and I was also thinking about how much "livable" land there really is on Earth and if it were divvied up equally among 8 billion people what would that give us? Of course, the definition of how much "livable" land is available is relative to people's skills, knowledge and willingness to put in work, and, perhaps the global population numbers we get from the mainstream are totally fabricated, but those were some of the reasons I went with 7 for this poll.
300 acres, ya, I would take on that challenge and strive to honor that amount of land with my life's work. It would take me a few decades with only hand tools, but I think I could enrich the biodiversity and beauty of that much land in a meaningful way for the next generation (given the chance).
Thanks for the comment, your candor is always refreshing.
Interesting data, Gavin. I'm in Scotland and have been slowly looking for a better place to live for some time, where we have a little land for growing crops, a stream for energy (etheric energy, as well as practical power-generation). The energy of the land is critical - so many places have been depleted beyond measure, the land is crying out for us to love Her. High on my list is being shielded from direct 4g/5g masts. Even a small hill you can shelter behind is good enough.
Practically and with my economic status, the UK and Ireland are the only places I can realistically live. Ireland has a lot to offer - one of the few countries self-sufficient in food and a lot of high quality produce at that - but the political and economic repression in Covid was one of the worst.
Emotionally, I am most drawn to South America, having visited once and fallen in love with the land, and people. Thats my dream choice.
I clicked "Southern Interior of Turtle Island" though I'm not sure if thats the right label. We go by the Ozarks Bioregion. We are in the middle of the continent, have lots of rural land, and plenty of places with little or no building restrictions. There are a few cities around if you need specific medical attention or enjoy occasional access to modern amenities and entertainment.
the Hopi give great advice on the topic of picking a place to settle...I paraphrase. Pick a place so meager that nobody else would bother to fight you for it but you can sustain yourself barely but sufficient to life.they picked where they picked and have managed to live on their beautiful land for a 1,000 years,,,the oldest settlements in North America. I live in the Lillooet Valley in BC. It has no public transportation, bad roads prone to landslides and bad winter weather that could make access almost impossible at times, the least EmF emitting towers anywhere in BC, lousy internet and phone service, fairly lousy government so they don't interfere in a person's life much. It is a glorious place with only one town and it is small. Mostly Native population which to me is all bonus...they love and protect the land and the water as best they can. Mountains and valleys, good enough land for growing most things, I have entirely gravity fed water and lots of it. Pollution from the cities is not blown in on the wind, Recently they have started chemtrailing but I don't think that project will last that much longer. Terrible fire risks in the summer, lots of forest, almost no industry.
Forced to vote Australia because Grytviken (Prince Edward Island) isnt really a "small" island in the ocean and otherwise wasn't included. I'd love 7 acres either near the Bunya Mountains or the Atherton Tablelands, both ideal places to focus on growing my favourite tree, the bunya pine.
We are fortunate to have found 40 acres in a somewhat remote area (1500 people in our valley that runs approximately 60 miles, north-south). Although in the high desert region of the Great Basin, we have a mountain range which is a designated wilderness area, literally out our back door. Although it is not "perfect" (depends on what one determines is perfect) we love the area and the life we have established going into our sixth year. Many of the locals are using regenerative farming (mostly hay, cattle, sheep). Although a small community, there are numerous folks involved in the local organic movement and our town (pop 500) has a busy Hub for growers to sell their produce. Would I have preferred an area with a more temperate climate? Sure, but that would have required a greater investment as well as living amongst a much larger population. Life is slow and quiet here. Thank you providing so much excellent information for those of us who chose to live with and amongst nature!
An island close to the equator, Pacific, maybe an uncharted island in the Indonesian Archipelago. Preferably with a small volcano, or volcanic soil. The poll didn't say where the island was, so I figure I get to choose. The older I get, and the more weight I lose, the more the cold bothers me. I want a warm beach, some jungle to clear out a patch to grow in, using all the wonderful compost from the jungle and volcanic soil. A running stream from snowmelt from the peak of the volcano, year round, plus ponds from tropical rains. No internet, no politics, and just a few people. I do want electricity though.
Looks like a nice place, as long as there's no slave trade going on anymore from Peru. Looking in the same area, there's so many tiny little islands. I found a pair I really like:
Comes with volcanos, and the map shows streams coming down from the mountain, and the other has a crater lake, but who knows if it has turned into sulfuric acid yet.
I thought at first we had to choose from that first choice box, probably because I go racing through and then go back to read it again later...
But I'd choose Africa, and NOT the Congo. WHY anybody would choose Canada-- on of the most UNdemocratic places right now! But sooo many places are beautiful and wonderful, so I say we stop this globalist bs and fix things, and find out how Tesla made that box that pulls power right out of the air, and really really get our sheep together, and then-- the whole world will be just what it was intended to be: Heaven.
I'd choose to own 7 acres in The City of London. I wouldn't want to live there but I'm sure I could rent out space and make enough money to buy 40,000 acres of land pretty much anywhere I wanted. I could be wrong but I'd give it a shot 🙂
I'd like to live in England. But only if it was pre-industrial. It was once a most beautiful Island with an astonishing variety of landscapes for such a small landmass. I carry a permanent ache for that land; a place of clear rivers, of birdsong, of mists and mellow fruitfulness; the place I've never seen but is still my birth right.
Gavin, before I take the poll and read all of this essay, I want to mention something that I read recently about the name 'Turtle Island.' It's actually an English name, made up by white people and not part of an original culture, whereas the name Canada is based on an indigenous name, Kanata. So the name Canada is fitting. I will try to find that essay again, but it made sense to me. I take it that your negative reference is to America, named after Amerigo Vespucci.
Also, I personally do not think the name Canada is fitting. Most of the indigenous people I know and work with here in the Eastern Woodlands of Turtle Island feel that the name "Canada" represents ignorance, imperialism, stupidity, genocide, hubris, corporate pillaging and colonial abuse. They do not feel the word "Canada" justly and rightly describe this beautiful and diverse land of many cultures (that are oppressed by the nation state of Canada, which is a multi-generational racketeering cartel). I agree with them.
For more on what "Canada" is and why it is not a word nor entity worth re-enforcing.
Turtle Island, is certainly a big improvement, but I think that naming the land should reflect the voice of all the earth honoring cultures present here now, so I am not saying we should "enforce" the name Turtle Island in perpetuity.
The word Canada, is based on the stupidity of Jacques Cartier who failed to understand what some indigenous people were saying when they said the word "Kanata" which means village.
I do not know what we should call this land, but Canada is the name imposed on this land by a criminal cartel, and America, as you say, was named after a psychopath named Amerigo Vespucci.
For those that are not aware, the namesake of the word “America” is a man named Amerigo Vespucci, whose historical title lists him as a prominent merchant. A capitalist of sorts. What the mainstream texts and social engineering internet sources will not tell you is that he was also a brutal slave trader.
In today’s vernacular his schemes to lure/trick men, women and children (or sometimes drag them unconscious or kicking and screaming) onto his boat(s) and then slap chains on them and sell them to the highest bidder would earn him the title of a ground level thug in an organized crime syndicate using duplicity, violence and kidnapping to engage in a racketeering operation (now commonly referred to as “Human Trafficking”).
Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Amerigo Vespucci (eponym for the Americas) describing his encounter with some indigenous peoples on one of his voyages:
“..we put in to shore; and they did not oppose our landing, through fear of the mortars, I think … And after a long battle, having slain many of them, we put them to flight … We burned the town and returned victorious and with 250 prisoners to the ships, leaving many of them dead and wounded; and on our side only one died, and 22 were wounded, all of whom recovered, praise be to God … and we set sail for Spain, with 222 slave prisoners; and we reached the port of Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well received and sold our slaves.” ( source: https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/letter-of-amerigo-vespucci-to-pier-soderini-1497.php#:~:text=We%20arranged%20our%20departure%2C%20and,slaves%3A%20and%20reached%20the%20port )
Amerigo Vespucci went on a number of other voyages to what we now call “South America” which involved even more malicious, grewsome and insidious tactics in luring the indigenous peoples onto boats in order to sell them as slaves.
For more info on Amerigo Vespucci and his human trafficking enterprises:
Interesting regarding what you say about Turtle Island. I mean, obviously "Turtle Island" is the English word for "Mishiike Minisi" (which is the english letter translation of the Potawatomi word for "Turtle Island") but it seems you are trying to say that the multiple words in various indigenous languages across "North America" that mean "Turtle Island" in English were all planted in their languages by some "white people" ?
I godda tell you, it sounds an awful lot like a BS psyop planted by some "white people" that want to undermine the perceived legitimacy of pre-colonial linguistics and pre-statist place names, but I am always open to learning something new, so please do share any citations on that if you can.
I learned the English term "Turtle Island", which is obviously English but is intended as a translation for the terms that some indigenous languages used to refer to what most people in the world call North America, today from Robin Wall Kimmerer, and then had it confirmed by several other Indigenous elders I connected with from different Indigenous cultures across Canada since then.
Here is the Creation Story of Sky Woman Falling, as relayed by Robin Wall Kimmerer (that contains the origin story of "Turtle Island".
Gavin, I can't locate that piece I read. I read so much and then delete it. The gist was that a renaming of North America by 'some white folk' who may have intergenerational guilt, could be as ironic as calling it after slave trader and butcher Amerigo Vespucci. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that. Has colonization destroyed the continent's culture? Yes. Prior to that, did early dwellers in the Americas live peacefully with their neighbours? No, there was plenty of intertribal warfare and environmental destruction. Some species were rendered extinct. So, I don't think we need to elevate the concept that early humans on the North American continent were gentle environmentalists. I'm very familiar with Indigenous creation stories, particularly in the North. Are we going to change all these names back to names carried down through oral tradition? I'm on the same page as you, as far as your Substack essays go. I just don't think renaming everything will really undo all the damage that Europeans wreaked on the New World. As for where to choose if given the chance for 7 acres anywhere, I'd pick the Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica, for its year-round good weather, ability to grow food, proximity to the sea and political stability. Currently in Western Turtle Island (BC) off-grid, but increasingly hate where Canada has gone (Covid tyranny, anti-Freedom Convoy, Trudeau and God forbid a Carney PM.
Thanks for getting back to me on that myth of “white folks” inventing the term “Turtle Island” and sharing your thoughts.
What exactly is “intergenerational guilt”? Sounds like some made up woke nonsense. Children are not born feeling guilty, they are innately, loving, curious, generous and accepting. Feeling guilty about something nonsensical like the color of your skin would have to be trained into them by stupid adults.
I do not buy into woke propaganda that attempts to make people with lighter skin color feel guilty for their appearance and/or people with higher melanin content in their skin feel anger towards others in the opposite direction. That is a divide and conquer psyop that I have called out multiple times.
“Has colonization destroyed the continent's culture? Yes.”
I disagree, I think that colonial forces sought to do that, and had limited degrees of success in their genocidal and ethnic cleaning operations (both here in Canada and south of us).
There are still pockets of intact culture that are decolonizing their land, their food production, their language and they are expanding, not shrinking. I work with one such group where I live.
“I don't think we need to elevate the concept that early humans on the North American continent were gentle environmentalists”
I agree, and I certainly have never described them as such myself.
There were many cultural practices that existed in what we now call “North America” (or Mshike Mnise which means “Turtle Island” in the Anishinaabemowin language) before the Europeans came to claim the land as their own and commit genocide (killing off up to 98% of the local population in some areas). Though there was a great diversity in their cultural practices and belief systems, they all shared several common themes.
Some of these cultures formed democracies (such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy) others were matriarchal societies but the one through-line that can be observed in the majority of traditional views and spiritual teachings of all of the indigenous cultures of Turtle Island is that they recognized all of our fellow non-human beings on Earth as animate, imbued with a spirit and as persons deserving of our respect and reverence. Also, something that is of critical importance to realize about the difference between the religion and spiritual beliefs that used to guide the people that called this land home, compared to the imported European religion, is that all the various indigenous teachings viewed our non-human fellow beings on Earth as wise elders, from which we had much to learn.
With all that being said, I want to emphasize that I think that placing any culture, group of people or individual on some pedestal as pure is unhealthy (the Gael and Druids included) . I feel we should be vigilant to make sure we are not romanticizing their past nor romanticizing the potential of their worldviews to provide solutions to the present challenges we face.
I also acknowledge the fact that psychopathy, greed and other anti-social traits are not unique to modern western culture. Unpleasant, selfish (and even sometimes ecologically degenerative) characteristics can be observed (overtly) in the traditions of specific isolated indigenous peoples (some of them were slave trading warlords and others may have respected the forest but were somewhat materialistic coveting ornate possessions).
Other indigenous peoples refused to trade with people that enslaved others and wanted nothing to do with money.
Thus, I feel that while no culture is perfect, and some may have lived in a way that expressed more compassion, ethical social structures and holistic thinking than others, one thing is certain, and that is that these starkly contrasted cultures offer us helpful sign posts as we attempt to navigate and forge a path towards a more honest, equitable, kind, abundant and regenerative future.
So, I acknowledge violent conflicts and slavery that existed in a small number of indigenous tribes of what is now called North America (and elsewhere). However, I would suggest that we should keep in mind that demonization and dehumanization of the perceived “enemy” or targeted “sub-human class” of an empire is a time tested psychological warfare technique that has been employed in both real time conflicts and retrospectively as “victors write the history books”.
There is nuance and the need for discernment. I would never universally declare that anyone and everyone indigenous to this continent (or anywhere else) all have “noble intentions” (simply because of their genetic heritage). That would be absurd.
Cultural influence is more important than genetic heritage, and many that have genetic heritage indigenous to this continent have not only had their lands colonized, but also their minds. This can result in the manifestation of Coal Mine owning, Uranium mine owning Fracking pipeline approving Native “American” Chiefs (that wave the American flag proudly) or Old Growth clearcut logging operation profiteering or Lithium mine approving First Nation Chiefs in the Boreal forest (as I highlighted in a comment on here).
The way one lives and defines their relationship to place (as either being a steward, protector and keystone species, or not) is what defines them as affirming their indigeneity, in the way in which I use the term, and not bloodlines. The ancient covenants that each and everyone of our indigenous ancestors had (whether here or in Europe prior to imperialistic empires dominating, or elsewhere) had with taking on the role of caretaker, giver, protector and tender of a particular land, is what defined them as indigenous to place.
All of us, regardless of skin color, genetic heritage, geographical location and age need to sever our ties to corrupt exploitative institutions and degenerative belief systems and take action to become indigenous to place. This process takes multiple generations and we will not see the fruit of our labor in this life, but it is sacred work.
I chose Africa, specifically Kenya. I know nothing about life in Africa nor in Kenya, so maybe I am completely wrong. But given your criteria...
Kenya is both on the ocean and mountainous, with forests being plentiful inland. Personally, I prefer a warm climate, but, at least according to Wikipedia, Kenya offers varying temperatures depending on where you settle.
I realize of course that Kenya/Africa would be a complete culture change, full of both flora and fauna which I can only assume would be unfamiliar to you, but that's half the fun.
I'd move to somewhere in Russia that has a reasonably benign climate, no cities for miles and I'd disappear.
Dear Gavin. Thank you for this wonderful post/poll. I am eventually getting to it, now we are into April! This is something very close to my heart, though unlikely to happen for us bar some miracle… so this is great to get my teeth into. Your criteria are fairly flawless and I’d be happy to live almost anywhere that met them. In terms of the poll, I surprised myself. Sometimes opting for more familiar places rather than using other criteria. I am a Northern European and funnily enough I would struggle without any seasons - I know this as I spent several formative years living in Colombia in South America as a child, which I loved, but I did miss the seasons. We were equatorial there. However that experience has itself informed my other choices…. South America and Central America (I spent 8 months in Costa Rica - astonishingly gorgeous place and people). On that note, I have heard remarkable things about the energetic properties of Nicaraguan sandy beaches when it comes to counteracting 5G and that alone is enough for me to desire to have my whole family barefoot there, picturing my children barefoot on that beach makes me want to pack my bags with no plan or money! A communal measure of real self sufficiency is the dream is it not - but other considerations need to be suitability to the terrain and climate, surroundings, family needs etc. I see lithium deposits in South America are considerable, which I didn’t know, and gives Nicaragua another advantage. To cap it off I went Nordic region….. the expansiveness and beauty draws me, and the impression that perhaps people will more readily leave you to get on with what you want to? This could be a false impression. Thanks again!
I want to live with my family. i cannot go anywhere they are not. So, i could. not take the quiz. I will stay where i am, maybe a bit closer to the forest. i wish people would stop paving up everything. I use to be right by a forest. so annoying.
I would prefer to be a nomad. With small parcels (1/2 acre or so) from central yukon down through the deserts of bc, Washington, oregon, SE Utah, arizona, chihuahua and baja.
Cool article. I lived in SE Alaska for a good while and just got back from visiting family in Hawaii. I have seen these things.
Here in the Yukon, where I now live, in the alpine tundra are stone hunting blinds, walls for herding caribou and trenches for trapping geese.
Thanks again Gavin. Your work inspires me and helps me feel less alone in this mad world.
Whether you like it or not, we are kindred spirits.
Peace.
While I like the idea of a nomadic ecologically literate human (having the potential to leave "regenerative ripple effects" in their wake as they travel and engage in the process the indigenous people describe as "Hwteyqnut-t" out in BC) you totally subverted the rules of my poll with your unapproved answer!
Darn you poll rebels, drawing outside the lines and refusing to comply! Well, I guess that is what I should expect given I write about refusing to comply so much :)
I do appreciate the comment even if you are a poll rule breaker :)
For more on the term I mentioned above (Hwteyqnut-t) which involves the traditional intentional movement of organisms from one place to another to enrich biodiversity and create permanent self-perpetuating food systems read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/regenerative-ocean-gardening-kelp
I didn’t find my 7 acres of paradise in your survey because I would have 3 criteria—no noise pollution, no air/water pollution, no extreme weather. I really don’t think such a place exists in our world anymore. Because of that I’d say we need about 300 acres to create a little bubble where all that is at least at a minimum. Though we are in rural Texas, where there’s a saying about plots like ours of a measly 40 or 50 acres: “That will buy you a front yard.” 😆
And we have all of the above, extreme weather, loads of noise pollution from the sky, and loads of air pollution from the Gulf of Mexico and water pollution from farmland and geoengineering/weather mod happening regularly.
I feel you my friend.
Well said regarding the prolific sonic, particulate and artificial meteorological pressures. Here in southern Ontario light pollution from the giant government grow shows is also a huge problem.
(for pics: https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/raw-cannabis-in-the-kitchen-the-medicine?r=q2yay&selection=7bf4ff64-4e2d-46c4-a1d7-cd9b532ae479&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web )
I was mainly going with 7 as that is all we can afford in a small number of places here in "Canada" and I was also thinking about how much "livable" land there really is on Earth and if it were divvied up equally among 8 billion people what would that give us? Of course, the definition of how much "livable" land is available is relative to people's skills, knowledge and willingness to put in work, and, perhaps the global population numbers we get from the mainstream are totally fabricated, but those were some of the reasons I went with 7 for this poll.
300 acres, ya, I would take on that challenge and strive to honor that amount of land with my life's work. It would take me a few decades with only hand tools, but I think I could enrich the biodiversity and beauty of that much land in a meaningful way for the next generation (given the chance).
Thanks for the comment, your candor is always refreshing.
Interesting data, Gavin. I'm in Scotland and have been slowly looking for a better place to live for some time, where we have a little land for growing crops, a stream for energy (etheric energy, as well as practical power-generation). The energy of the land is critical - so many places have been depleted beyond measure, the land is crying out for us to love Her. High on my list is being shielded from direct 4g/5g masts. Even a small hill you can shelter behind is good enough.
Practically and with my economic status, the UK and Ireland are the only places I can realistically live. Ireland has a lot to offer - one of the few countries self-sufficient in food and a lot of high quality produce at that - but the political and economic repression in Covid was one of the worst.
Emotionally, I am most drawn to South America, having visited once and fallen in love with the land, and people. Thats my dream choice.
I clicked "Southern Interior of Turtle Island" though I'm not sure if thats the right label. We go by the Ozarks Bioregion. We are in the middle of the continent, have lots of rural land, and plenty of places with little or no building restrictions. There are a few cities around if you need specific medical attention or enjoy occasional access to modern amenities and entertainment.
the Hopi give great advice on the topic of picking a place to settle...I paraphrase. Pick a place so meager that nobody else would bother to fight you for it but you can sustain yourself barely but sufficient to life.they picked where they picked and have managed to live on their beautiful land for a 1,000 years,,,the oldest settlements in North America. I live in the Lillooet Valley in BC. It has no public transportation, bad roads prone to landslides and bad winter weather that could make access almost impossible at times, the least EmF emitting towers anywhere in BC, lousy internet and phone service, fairly lousy government so they don't interfere in a person's life much. It is a glorious place with only one town and it is small. Mostly Native population which to me is all bonus...they love and protect the land and the water as best they can. Mountains and valleys, good enough land for growing most things, I have entirely gravity fed water and lots of it. Pollution from the cities is not blown in on the wind, Recently they have started chemtrailing but I don't think that project will last that much longer. Terrible fire risks in the summer, lots of forest, almost no industry.
Forced to vote Australia because Grytviken (Prince Edward Island) isnt really a "small" island in the ocean and otherwise wasn't included. I'd love 7 acres either near the Bunya Mountains or the Atherton Tablelands, both ideal places to focus on growing my favourite tree, the bunya pine.
We are fortunate to have found 40 acres in a somewhat remote area (1500 people in our valley that runs approximately 60 miles, north-south). Although in the high desert region of the Great Basin, we have a mountain range which is a designated wilderness area, literally out our back door. Although it is not "perfect" (depends on what one determines is perfect) we love the area and the life we have established going into our sixth year. Many of the locals are using regenerative farming (mostly hay, cattle, sheep). Although a small community, there are numerous folks involved in the local organic movement and our town (pop 500) has a busy Hub for growers to sell their produce. Would I have preferred an area with a more temperate climate? Sure, but that would have required a greater investment as well as living amongst a much larger population. Life is slow and quiet here. Thank you providing so much excellent information for those of us who chose to live with and amongst nature!
An island close to the equator, Pacific, maybe an uncharted island in the Indonesian Archipelago. Preferably with a small volcano, or volcanic soil. The poll didn't say where the island was, so I figure I get to choose. The older I get, and the more weight I lose, the more the cold bothers me. I want a warm beach, some jungle to clear out a patch to grow in, using all the wonderful compost from the jungle and volcanic soil. A running stream from snowmelt from the peak of the volcano, year round, plus ponds from tropical rains. No internet, no politics, and just a few people. I do want electricity though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻAta
Looks like a nice place, as long as there's no slave trade going on anymore from Peru. Looking in the same area, there's so many tiny little islands. I found a pair I really like:
https://mapcarta.com/38546274
Comes with volcanos, and the map shows streams coming down from the mountain, and the other has a crater lake, but who knows if it has turned into sulfuric acid yet.
I thought at first we had to choose from that first choice box, probably because I go racing through and then go back to read it again later...
But I'd choose Africa, and NOT the Congo. WHY anybody would choose Canada-- on of the most UNdemocratic places right now! But sooo many places are beautiful and wonderful, so I say we stop this globalist bs and fix things, and find out how Tesla made that box that pulls power right out of the air, and really really get our sheep together, and then-- the whole world will be just what it was intended to be: Heaven.
I'd choose to own 7 acres in The City of London. I wouldn't want to live there but I'm sure I could rent out space and make enough money to buy 40,000 acres of land pretty much anywhere I wanted. I could be wrong but I'd give it a shot 🙂
Did you know that "The City of London" is what they call the "Black Nobility"?
Yeah, there's the city of London, that's the geographical place.
:)
I'm referring to The City of London....the financial center of the UK 🙂
So am I. 🙂 But dig a bit deeper, you'll find it's not just of the UK.
Absolutely agree, it's not just the financial center of the UK.
I have absolutely nothing to gain by telling you this.
Right. These guys are the ultimate Globalists, have been for a long time.
https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/22084714-4427-4592-bbc2-e5eeaaa57eef_1434x813.png
Oh damn, this is only a photo. I'm trying to find the POST by Frances Leader-- These people are behind most of the fuckery in the world.
Also known as "The Crown Corporation."
I'd like to live in England. But only if it was pre-industrial. It was once a most beautiful Island with an astonishing variety of landscapes for such a small landmass. I carry a permanent ache for that land; a place of clear rivers, of birdsong, of mists and mellow fruitfulness; the place I've never seen but is still my birth right.
Gavin, before I take the poll and read all of this essay, I want to mention something that I read recently about the name 'Turtle Island.' It's actually an English name, made up by white people and not part of an original culture, whereas the name Canada is based on an indigenous name, Kanata. So the name Canada is fitting. I will try to find that essay again, but it made sense to me. I take it that your negative reference is to America, named after Amerigo Vespucci.
https://substack.com/profile/43807786-gavin-mounsey/note/c-100591864
Also, I personally do not think the name Canada is fitting. Most of the indigenous people I know and work with here in the Eastern Woodlands of Turtle Island feel that the name "Canada" represents ignorance, imperialism, stupidity, genocide, hubris, corporate pillaging and colonial abuse. They do not feel the word "Canada" justly and rightly describe this beautiful and diverse land of many cultures (that are oppressed by the nation state of Canada, which is a multi-generational racketeering cartel). I agree with them.
For more on what "Canada" is and why it is not a word nor entity worth re-enforcing.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-i-do-not-celebrate-canada-day
Turtle Island, is certainly a big improvement, but I think that naming the land should reflect the voice of all the earth honoring cultures present here now, so I am not saying we should "enforce" the name Turtle Island in perpetuity.
For more on the term: https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/turtle-island-decolonized/
The word Canada, is based on the stupidity of Jacques Cartier who failed to understand what some indigenous people were saying when they said the word "Kanata" which means village.
I do not know what we should call this land, but Canada is the name imposed on this land by a criminal cartel, and America, as you say, was named after a psychopath named Amerigo Vespucci.
For those that are not aware, the namesake of the word “America” is a man named Amerigo Vespucci, whose historical title lists him as a prominent merchant. A capitalist of sorts. What the mainstream texts and social engineering internet sources will not tell you is that he was also a brutal slave trader.
In today’s vernacular his schemes to lure/trick men, women and children (or sometimes drag them unconscious or kicking and screaming) onto his boat(s) and then slap chains on them and sell them to the highest bidder would earn him the title of a ground level thug in an organized crime syndicate using duplicity, violence and kidnapping to engage in a racketeering operation (now commonly referred to as “Human Trafficking”).
Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Amerigo Vespucci (eponym for the Americas) describing his encounter with some indigenous peoples on one of his voyages:
“..we put in to shore; and they did not oppose our landing, through fear of the mortars, I think … And after a long battle, having slain many of them, we put them to flight … We burned the town and returned victorious and with 250 prisoners to the ships, leaving many of them dead and wounded; and on our side only one died, and 22 were wounded, all of whom recovered, praise be to God … and we set sail for Spain, with 222 slave prisoners; and we reached the port of Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well received and sold our slaves.” ( source: https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/letter-of-amerigo-vespucci-to-pier-soderini-1497.php#:~:text=We%20arranged%20our%20departure%2C%20and,slaves%3A%20and%20reached%20the%20port )
Amerigo Vespucci went on a number of other voyages to what we now call “South America” which involved even more malicious, grewsome and insidious tactics in luring the indigenous peoples onto boats in order to sell them as slaves.
For more info on Amerigo Vespucci and his human trafficking enterprises:
– http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/explorers/americus-vespucius.htm
– https://nutritionalgeography.faculty.ucdavis.edu/exploration-accounts/amerigo-vespucci/
– https://brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm##1500
For more info, see:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/poll-of-the-month-should-we-change
Greetings veggie warrior,
Interesting regarding what you say about Turtle Island. I mean, obviously "Turtle Island" is the English word for "Mishiike Minisi" (which is the english letter translation of the Potawatomi word for "Turtle Island") but it seems you are trying to say that the multiple words in various indigenous languages across "North America" that mean "Turtle Island" in English were all planted in their languages by some "white people" ?
I godda tell you, it sounds an awful lot like a BS psyop planted by some "white people" that want to undermine the perceived legitimacy of pre-colonial linguistics and pre-statist place names, but I am always open to learning something new, so please do share any citations on that if you can.
I learned the English term "Turtle Island", which is obviously English but is intended as a translation for the terms that some indigenous languages used to refer to what most people in the world call North America, today from Robin Wall Kimmerer, and then had it confirmed by several other Indigenous elders I connected with from different Indigenous cultures across Canada since then.
Here is the Creation Story of Sky Woman Falling, as relayed by Robin Wall Kimmerer (that contains the origin story of "Turtle Island".
https://archive.org/details/skywomanfalling
Here is a video with her talking about it:
https://youtu.be/Ww4MLKtvkYU?si=WrnFUcsiPRfY9eGh&t=310
Thanks for the comment. I look forward to learning more about the essay you mentioned.
For instance, our southern Lakota neighbors referred to this continent as Khéya Wíta (meaning “Turtle Island” in Lakota).
for more info : https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/lakota-territory/
Gavin, I can't locate that piece I read. I read so much and then delete it. The gist was that a renaming of North America by 'some white folk' who may have intergenerational guilt, could be as ironic as calling it after slave trader and butcher Amerigo Vespucci. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that. Has colonization destroyed the continent's culture? Yes. Prior to that, did early dwellers in the Americas live peacefully with their neighbours? No, there was plenty of intertribal warfare and environmental destruction. Some species were rendered extinct. So, I don't think we need to elevate the concept that early humans on the North American continent were gentle environmentalists. I'm very familiar with Indigenous creation stories, particularly in the North. Are we going to change all these names back to names carried down through oral tradition? I'm on the same page as you, as far as your Substack essays go. I just don't think renaming everything will really undo all the damage that Europeans wreaked on the New World. As for where to choose if given the chance for 7 acres anywhere, I'd pick the Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica, for its year-round good weather, ability to grow food, proximity to the sea and political stability. Currently in Western Turtle Island (BC) off-grid, but increasingly hate where Canada has gone (Covid tyranny, anti-Freedom Convoy, Trudeau and God forbid a Carney PM.
Thanks for getting back to me on that myth of “white folks” inventing the term “Turtle Island” and sharing your thoughts.
What exactly is “intergenerational guilt”? Sounds like some made up woke nonsense. Children are not born feeling guilty, they are innately, loving, curious, generous and accepting. Feeling guilty about something nonsensical like the color of your skin would have to be trained into them by stupid adults.
I do not buy into woke propaganda that attempts to make people with lighter skin color feel guilty for their appearance and/or people with higher melanin content in their skin feel anger towards others in the opposite direction. That is a divide and conquer psyop that I have called out multiple times.
Here is one example: https://archive.org/details/CanadaTruthandReconciliationday
“Has colonization destroyed the continent's culture? Yes.”
I disagree, I think that colonial forces sought to do that, and had limited degrees of success in their genocidal and ethnic cleaning operations (both here in Canada and south of us).
There are still pockets of intact culture that are decolonizing their land, their food production, their language and they are expanding, not shrinking. I work with one such group where I live.
“I don't think we need to elevate the concept that early humans on the North American continent were gentle environmentalists”
I agree, and I certainly have never described them as such myself.
There were many cultural practices that existed in what we now call “North America” (or Mshike Mnise which means “Turtle Island” in the Anishinaabemowin language) before the Europeans came to claim the land as their own and commit genocide (killing off up to 98% of the local population in some areas). Though there was a great diversity in their cultural practices and belief systems, they all shared several common themes.
Some of these cultures formed democracies (such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy) others were matriarchal societies but the one through-line that can be observed in the majority of traditional views and spiritual teachings of all of the indigenous cultures of Turtle Island is that they recognized all of our fellow non-human beings on Earth as animate, imbued with a spirit and as persons deserving of our respect and reverence. Also, something that is of critical importance to realize about the difference between the religion and spiritual beliefs that used to guide the people that called this land home, compared to the imported European religion, is that all the various indigenous teachings viewed our non-human fellow beings on Earth as wise elders, from which we had much to learn.
With all that being said, I want to emphasize that I think that placing any culture, group of people or individual on some pedestal as pure is unhealthy (the Gael and Druids included) . I feel we should be vigilant to make sure we are not romanticizing their past nor romanticizing the potential of their worldviews to provide solutions to the present challenges we face.
I also acknowledge the fact that psychopathy, greed and other anti-social traits are not unique to modern western culture. Unpleasant, selfish (and even sometimes ecologically degenerative) characteristics can be observed (overtly) in the traditions of specific isolated indigenous peoples (some of them were slave trading warlords and others may have respected the forest but were somewhat materialistic coveting ornate possessions).
Other indigenous peoples refused to trade with people that enslaved others and wanted nothing to do with money.
Thus, I feel that while no culture is perfect, and some may have lived in a way that expressed more compassion, ethical social structures and holistic thinking than others, one thing is certain, and that is that these starkly contrasted cultures offer us helpful sign posts as we attempt to navigate and forge a path towards a more honest, equitable, kind, abundant and regenerative future.
So, I acknowledge violent conflicts and slavery that existed in a small number of indigenous tribes of what is now called North America (and elsewhere). However, I would suggest that we should keep in mind that demonization and dehumanization of the perceived “enemy” or targeted “sub-human class” of an empire is a time tested psychological warfare technique that has been employed in both real time conflicts and retrospectively as “victors write the history books”.
There is nuance and the need for discernment. I would never universally declare that anyone and everyone indigenous to this continent (or anywhere else) all have “noble intentions” (simply because of their genetic heritage). That would be absurd.
Cultural influence is more important than genetic heritage, and many that have genetic heritage indigenous to this continent have not only had their lands colonized, but also their minds. This can result in the manifestation of Coal Mine owning, Uranium mine owning Fracking pipeline approving Native “American” Chiefs (that wave the American flag proudly) or Old Growth clearcut logging operation profiteering or Lithium mine approving First Nation Chiefs in the Boreal forest (as I highlighted in a comment on here).
The way one lives and defines their relationship to place (as either being a steward, protector and keystone species, or not) is what defines them as affirming their indigeneity, in the way in which I use the term, and not bloodlines. The ancient covenants that each and everyone of our indigenous ancestors had (whether here or in Europe prior to imperialistic empires dominating, or elsewhere) had with taking on the role of caretaker, giver, protector and tender of a particular land, is what defined them as indigenous to place.
All of us, regardless of skin color, genetic heritage, geographical location and age need to sever our ties to corrupt exploitative institutions and degenerative belief systems and take action to become indigenous to place. This process takes multiple generations and we will not see the fruit of our labor in this life, but it is sacred work.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-monster-of-modernitywendigo-thinking
Thanks for the comment.
Agree with you completely.