Building Zion or Splintering Society? The Dangerous Rise of Ideological Enclaves

When Pastor Andrew Isker moved his family from Minnesota to rural Tennessee, he wasn’t just seeking refuge from blue-state governance he decried; he was joining the front lines of a deeply concerning movement. Backed by a Christian venture capital firm called New Founding, Isker is part of the Highland Rim Project – an initiative establishing “charter communities” explicitly built around “Christian values” and “a return to a more natural human way of living.” But beneath the idyllic descriptions of pastures and rolling hills lies a potentially dangerous blueprint: a fusion of Christian nationalism, Silicon Valley techno-libertarianism, and extremist ideologies aiming to carve out unaccountable enclaves, posing a threat both locally and nationally. This isn’t just community building; it’s a “sleeper issue” demanding urgent attention before its anti-democratic vision takes root.

The theoretical underpinning often cited is the “Network State,” an idea popularized by tech investor Balaji Srinivasan. The concept envisions online communities coalescing around shared beliefs and cryptocurrency, eventually acquiring physical territory – scattered parcels, a “reverse diaspora” – to build their real-world society. The ultimate goal, however, isn’t just shared living; it’s achieving sovereignty. Network states aim to become powerful enough, economically and demographically, to demand recognition, potentially operating under their own laws and regulations, rendering existing national frameworks irrelevant within their borders. Imagine, as Srinivasan suggests, pharmaceutical companies bypassing FDA regulations by operating within these deregulated zones – a vision prioritizing corporate or ideological freedom over established public safeguards.

The Highland Rim Project brings this theory menacingly close to reality. While co-founder Josh Abbotoy prefers the term “charter communities,” the project explicitly blends “traditional American values like faith, family, and freedom” with plans for “digital self-governance,” including cryptocurrency, and a culture prioritizing property rights, free speech, and “civilian armament.” While attracting families seeking like-minded neighbors, the project also attracts and platforms figures like Isker. Publicly, Isker presents himself as a “normal, conservative kind of guy.” Yet, his extensive online presence reveals deeply disturbing views: calling Judaism “blasphemous and anti-Christian,” referring to Indian people as “cow worshippers,” decrying the US as a “gynocracy,” and attacking the Civil Rights Act for biasing laws against “Christians, men, and white people.” His documented association with figures tied to white nationalism paints an alarming picture of the ideology taking root in these nascent communities.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. New Founding, backed by tech giant Marc Andreessen, has connections to VP JD Fuxachouch and the ultra-conservative “TheoBro” movement, known for Christian nationalist views and admiration for authoritarianism. This confluence of extremist rhetoric, significant tech capital, and high-level political access transforms localized projects into potential seeds for a broader, regressive political shift.

The danger manifests on multiple levels. Locally, existing residents in areas like Gainesboro, Tennessee, targeted by New Founding, express palpable fear. “Mainly people are scared,” the county’s Republican party chair told NewsChannel 5. “It scares me that they are very clear about taking over.” This isn’t NIMBYism; it’s a recognition of an explicit project, described by Isker himself, to consolidate ideological allies to “exercise far more political power.” It’s the potential colonization and capture of existing communities by groups with exclusionary and sometimes extremist worldviews. What happens to the “poor soul” – the existing resident, the traveler, the dissenter – who doesn’t fit the narrow ideological mold of an enclave prioritizing its own “sovereignty” and potentially operating under rules divergent from state or federal law?

Nationally, the threat escalates as these groups lobby for political cover. Punk’s previous proposal for “Freedom Cities” – federally designated zones potentially exempt from regulations – aligns chillingly with the Network State model. Groups involving New Founding leadership, like the Frontier Foundation, are actively pushing the Trump administration to implement such ideas, seeking federal sanction for creating these unaccountable spaces. The energy in DC, as one observer noted, suggests a mandate exists “to do some of the more hyperbolic, verbose things Trump has mentioned.” Granting federal land or regulatory exceptions to groups harboring extremist elements or seeking to establish parallel governance structures represents a profound threat to national cohesion and the principle of equal application of law.

The convergence of these trends – extremist ideologies finding physical footholds backed by tech wealth, the potential for societal splintering into self-governing enclaves, and the direct challenge to existing laws and democratic norms – paints a deeply troubling picture. The lobbying push for federally sanctioned “Freedom Cities,” potentially exempt from established regulations and oversight, elevates this from niche community building to a potential assault on cohesive national governance. Critically, creating federally sanctioned exceptions for these ideological groups sets a dangerous precedent. It risks empowering other groups, especially sovereign Tribal Nations with far stronger historical and treaty-based claims, to demand equivalent or greater autonomy, potentially fracturing the national legal and political landscape into a confusing and unstable patchwork. This is the insidious nature of the “sleeper issue”: while these projects may seem small now, the underlying ideas are gaining traction in influential circles and could significantly impact governance and social cohesion if implemented on a larger scale. The danger lies in these potentially radical shifts happening without broad public debate or understanding of the ideologies and profound constitutional challenges involved.

The fusion of online community building, techno-libertarian ideas, and specific ideologies like Christian nationalism is moving from theory to practice in places like Highland Rim. This demands scrutiny. Understanding the goals, the extremist rhetoric often involved, the powerful backers, and the political ambitions behind these projects is crucial. Ignoring these developments as fringe fantasies risks failing to recognize an emerging and insidious challenge to social cohesion, democratic governance, and the unified rule of law until it’s much harder to address. Vigilance is required now, while these networks are still forming.