In Defense of the Right to “Return to the Land”: A Constitutional and Peace-Based Analysis

By the Priory of Salem, Institute of Peace Studies

In recent weeks, the group known as “Return to the Land” has come under intense and arguably malicious scrutiny, branded across mainstream media as a so-called “far-right hate movement.” Much of this criticism is rooted not in any proven violations of law or harm done, but in selective interviews, out-of-context quotes, and manipulative editing that weaponizes civil discourse.

Let us be clear: freedom of association is a cornerstone of American liberty, enshrined not only in the First Amendment but also affirmed repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court and international human rights law. It is a right that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”, and one that must not be infringed upon due to unpopular opinions, lifestyle preferences, or voluntary community frameworks.

For an in-depth historical visualization of this principle, we recommend reviewing our infographic and analysis on the American Tree of Liberty:
🔗 https://watchman.news/2022/07/american-national-tree-of-liberty-analysis-a-must-see-info-graphic/

---

Constitutional Violations Cloaked as Social Justice

The latest attack against “Return to the Land” stems from a Sky News exposé that can only be described as a professionally executed entrapment operation. The interviewer, a trained activist flown in from England, asked leading legal-style questions to the youngest and least prepared residents, spinning responses into a narrative of exclusion and intolerance—when the opposite is true.

This tactic—selectively targeting certain groups for practicing their constitutional rights in a private setting—amounts to the weaponization of civil rights law against peaceful Americans. It is both unethical and dangerous.

• Freedom of Association means the right to include or exclude anyone in a private membership-based group.

• In America, private land ownership und voluntary community standards are sacrosanct rights.

• There is no obligation for a private group to extend membership based on race, religion, or creed—as long as they are not functioning as a public accommodation or government entity.

And in the case of “Return to the Land,” they are doing nothing of the sort.

---

The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage

Across the United States, there are hundreds of private communities formed along racial, religious, or cultural lines. There are black-only land trusts, Jewish agricultural kibbutzim, intentional Muslim communities, and countless ethnic or religious communes.

Yet only when white Americans form a similar association do we see such aggressive targeting. This double standard is not only unfair—it breeds resentment, fuels division, and ultimately undermines the very peace these activists claim to promote.

What is the goal here? To prevent a group of farmers in the middle of nowhere from living quietly among like-minded individuals? Are we to criminalize peaceful homesteading simply because it’s been misrepresented?

---

Entrapment and the “Pre-Crime” Fallacy

The legal tactics used in the Sky News piece border on Orwellian.

• Young members were ambushed with convoluted hypotheticals designed to make them contradict themselves.

• They were framed as holding governmental authority, when in fact they are private citizens on private land.

• Statements were spliced and edited to build a false narrative—one the interviewer used later to “tattle” to state authorities as if the group had committed a crime.

This is not journalism—it is psychological manipulation. And when done across borders, with the intent of influencing local governments through foreign pressure, it borders on subversion.

We must remember what happens when speech and association are criminalized based on what might happen. These are the very tactics that led to gulags, re-education camps, and some of history’s darkest chapters.

---

Why Peace Demands Equal Treatment

If peace is our aim, then equal treatment is non-negotiable.

• We must defend the rights of unpopular or misunderstood groups just as vigorously as the favored.

• We must not paint all members of a community with the same brush, especially when that community is being framed by its enemies.

• And we must call out the hypocrisy of media and government-funded activist networks who never apply the same standard to non-white, non-Christian separatist groups.

Peace is not the absence of disagreement—it is the protection of lawful boundaries und das respect for all communities to flourish under their own banner, so long as they do no harm.

---

Recommendations for the Group Moving Forward

While the Sky News piece may be used as a smear, it also exposes a learning opportunity:

1. Publish a Charter – As recommended, the group should issue a formal charter or book that outlines its vision, membership rules, and boundaries. Then, when confronted, they can refer to written principles—not vulnerable individuals.

2. Train Members on Civil Liberties – Ensure every resident knows the limits of their speech rights, association protections, and how to engage with hostile media.

3. Never Pose as Public Officials – The group should repeatedly emphasize that it is not a public entity and does not serve the public. This removes the grounds for discrimination charges.

4. Document and Record Interactions – For transparency and accountability, groups like these must record all media encounters.

---

Final Thoughts: Justice, Not Jealousy

The question remains: Why is this group being attacked? Is it because they are dangerous, or because they’re building something beautiful—without the permission of the globalist urban elite?

We know the answer.

This is about envy. About control. About the fear that ordinary people—families, homesteaders, visionaries—might reclaim their ancestral way of life and make it work.

We at the Priorat von Salem, Institut für Friedensforschung, call for equal protection under law, an end to media-instigated civil rights manipulation, and a return to true liberty.

Because freedom is not only for the fashionable, the protected, or the progressive—it is for all people, even those who simply want to Return to the Land.