[RexImperator]

Quote:

When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government

I don’t think this was the primary reason for the second amendment. The original purpose the militia was for defense against marauding Indians.

It existed because there was in fact a “race war” (to use the modern term) on the frontier, going back to the times of the first English settlers.

[rpg]

Jefferson was a weird guy. He was somewhat for the idea that future generationins just shitcan the constitution and do something more relevant for our current needs.
The second amendment gives us the authority to make that happen.
If Jefferson could see what we are dealing with at this point he would 100% be telling us to clean the slate and do it over.

[Dusty]

Samseau has been dropping some gold in the Trump thread that got me thinking about the possibility of the US splitting up. Specifically, the assets/advantages that Red America has in the case of a possible national divorce.

1. Agriculture. America’s bread basket is right in the heart of Red America and farmers are pretty conservative. American farmers are probably the best anywhere - very efficient and have used technology to become extremely productive.

2. Energy. America is now the worlds number one oil producer in the world, and reserves (oil and natural gas) are mostly in Red America - Texas, Alaska, Dakota.

3. Land mass. Look at the 2016 results by county. Most of America is Red America. Even California. I drove to Lake Tahoe recently, and saw tons of american flags, MAGA bumper stickers, secession signs at the end of driveways (the Jefferson State movement) once you get outside the metros. Blue America is confined to large cities with high population density.

4. The potential for lots of defectors. Some, not all, white liberals will convert to Red America if they feel persecuted. If multikulti ever got so bad that white libs feel threatened, they will become Red Pilled. What if sharia takes hold in blue America. It could be economic persecution that red pills too - reparations bleeding whites dry. Peter Brimelow from VDare thinks Oregon will turn red at some point because it’s such a white state.

5. The military is dominated by conservatives. The non conservatives are probably dominated by women and LBTQQWEERTY and thus useless. Although, military leadership seems to be made up of Deep State creeps. But rank and file are conservatives overwhelmingly.

6. Ditto veterans. Ditto 2A people. Noam Chomsky said recently ( regarding ANTIFA I believe) that the left shouldn’t shift the fight against the right to violence, because if it goes that way the right will win.

I’m not suggesting it would be a cakewalk, but it’s good to know if the SHTF we have a lot resources on our side.

[MidJack]

(03-11-2019 02:13 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

5. The military is dominated by conservatives.

Not any more.

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(03-11-2019 09:35 PM)MidJack Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:13 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

5. The military is dominated by conservatives.

Not any more.

As he said, many senior officers are statists and politicians (and therefore jump on the cultural Marxism bandwagon to advance their own careers), but the rank and file are still overwhelmingly conservative--and that's especially true in combat arms, even more so in SOF.

[Easy_C]

Yep.

I'd broaden that to not just be officers, but many of the careerists. Keep in mind however that access to the senior enlisted ranks is controlled by Masonic connections and that most of the careerist NCO's are masons.

The reason why this is concerning has been covered in depth in other threads ( like a certain 40-ish page thread in general) but suffice it to say that nobody who is actively involved in Masonry is on our side. Them and other secret "fraternal" organizations are one of the key control structures because they control access to positions of influence and anyone admitted to them will have been vetted by the other side.

[Robert High Hawk]

(03-11-2019 02:13 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Samseau has been dropping some gold in the Trump thread that got me thinking about the possibility of the US splitting up. Specifically, the assets/advantages that Red America has in the case of a possible national divorce.

1. Agriculture. America’s bread basket is right in the heart of Red America and farmers are pretty conservative. American farmers are probably the best anywhere - very efficient and have used technology to become extremely productive.

2. Energy. America is now the worlds number one oil producer in the world, and reserves (oil and natural gas) are mostly in Red America - Texas, Alaska, Dakota.

3. Land mass. Look at the 2016 results by county. Most of America is Red America. Even California. I drove to Lake Tahoe recently, and saw tons of american flags, MAGA bumper stickers, secession signs at the end of driveways (the Jefferson State movement) once you get outside the metros. Blue America is confined to large cities with high population density.

4. The potential for lots of defectors. Some, not all, white liberals will convert to Red America if they feel persecuted. If multikulti ever got so bad that white libs feel threatened, they will become Red Pilled. What if sharia takes hold in blue America. It could be economic persecution that red pills too - reparations bleeding whites dry. Peter Brimelow from VDare thinks Oregon will turn red at some point because it’s such a white state.

5. The military is dominated by conservatives. The non conservatives are probably dominated by women and LBTQQWEERTY and thus useless. Although, military leadership seems to be made up of Deep State creeps. But rank and file are conservatives overwhelmingly.

6. Ditto veterans. Ditto 2A people. Noam Chomsky said recently ( regarding ANTIFA I believe) that the left shouldn’t shift the fight against the right to violence, because if it goes that way the right will win.

I’m not suggesting it would be a cakewalk, but it’s good to know if the SHTF we have a lot resources on our side.

Some thoughts on your 5 points:

1. The average age of a farmer in America is basically senior citizen level. Not only that, but they are also dwindling in number rapidly. Heavily dominated by big Ag, who is not your friend, and staffed by Migrants and soon robots, both of whom do not care either way. You can expect support from whatever farmers they are, but it's gonna be limited as heck.

2. That is true, however the cost per energy unit drilled is quite high compared to most other oil producers. With technology this is decreasing all the time, so certainly this could end up being a huge deal. THe problem is that these oil fields are still quite new, and nobody knows how much there really is left.

3. You are spot on with this one.

4. Don't know enough about that to comment.

5. It pains me to say this, but you would be surprised. Not so clear cut anymore. And the up and coming leaders are for sure liberal leaning, on average. That is going to be the biggest wake up call for many.

6. Some 2A people are extremely capable, smart individuals. Others are just as overweight, self absorbed, and utterly useless as many others. I would not assume great capabilities here (I hope I'm wrong). The reach of modern sedentary lifestyle, sinister and unhealthy foods, athiesm, cultural collapse, degenerate media bombardment affects everyone and slows them down, some more than others.

[Once Was Not]

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

[Geomann180]

(03-12-2019 12:12 PM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:35 PM)MidJack Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:13 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

5. The military is dominated by conservatives.

Not any more.

As he said, many senior officers are statists and politicians (and therefore jump on the cultural Marxism bandwagon to advance their own careers), but the rank and file are still overwhelmingly conservative--and that's especially true in combat arms, even more so in SOF.

Most of the conservative officers are getting out after their four years are up.

G

[BlueMark]

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

I like your idea. It's very reasonable.

Unfortunately, most Americans don't want reasonable solutions or clean goodbyes, they want trendy, flashy, easy to digest, and doesn't disrupt their preconceived notions too much. Such as the notion of a unified USA.

[aeroektar]

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

Look at all those blue cancerous spots spread about our country (not the massive patches like the northeast and southern Cal). Those are the reason it will never be peaceful. Those people won't go quietly. They might be queer faggots but they will do anything to maintain their strangleholds, and they will find plenty of funding and a huge network of support.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Notify Kona.

He lives on Cancer Island now.

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

One of the things I had to reconcile with is that I have always projected my better self onto the left in terms of what it was they really wanted to achieve. So when you say "we should divorce amicably so we can both be happy" you are misinterpreting who they are and what they stand for.

They want it all. The house, the car, the kids. All of it. Not just their share to use how they see fit. And they can only have all of it when you're in chains or dead.

The map above paints a vivid picture. Anyone who thinks we have not returned to the time of Lords living in city states is mistaken. The state borders in America are almost an abstraction now EXCEPT as a means to gain and maintain control of electoral zones to maintain the sham of democracy. The map above shows that in reality the elites live in their ivory towers and have imported a vast cadre of orcs and goblins to act as buffers against the peasantry to whom they are infinitely hostile.

[The Black Knight]

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

I've proposed the liberal-city state solution just as described before but I don't think it's very realistic in retrospect.

Problems with liberal city-state(s) solution:

What makes you think the elites in cities are going to voluntarily give up larges parts of their state that they have supported and vice versa for country people supporting city people?

How do you split resources in a way where everyone is happy? Who gets the good stuff? Who gets the debt?

Everything has been set-up in a manner where city/suburb/rural area exists and complements each other. Where do you draw the line in purple suburbia?

City-states make sense from a political purity stand point but aren't really practical in implementation. You have WAY better odds of success starting a MAGA city-state in rural West Virginia for example, where no one wants to live, than convincing a growing demographic majority to break apart numerous states/cities in a hugely complicated manner.

Furthermore, I would argue that the true MAGA crowd in the USA is 30-35% tops. Of those, many will not be down with secession or won't be able to follow through even if they wanted to. But 5% of Trump voters (out of 63 million) is about 3 million people and that's all you need to take over certain states completely and therefore, is a good goal to shoot for. The 2018 mid-terms proved how MAGA the country really was so don't delude yourself into thinking half the country is gonna sign up for what you're selling.

Best realistic plan that can actually be executed:

1. Vote Yang for President. Get Yang bucks. Fuel for the fire. Bonus that it might accelerate a weakening of the federal gov't; making it easier to break off.

2. Take Yang Bucks and have a massive migration to one or more of a handful of states; places that are DEEP red and have low population numbers are probably best bet.

Here is the list of states that voted Trump 60% or higher in 2016 (highest at top)

West Virginia
Wyoming
Oklahoma
North Dakota
Kentucky
Alabama
South Dakota
Tennessee
Arkansas

Wyoming and North Dakota are probably best bets: they have populations less than 1 million, TONS of land that no one cares about or wants, are deep red, the culture is very individualistic/anti-federal gov't, and they have a large homogeneous racial block. In these places, you need very little money to survive. Wyoming is also leading the way on cryptocurrency regulations; which might make the transition from USD to some form of crypto usage more viable.

One major risk to the mountain west though is if Yellowstone blows up. But most people are fucked if that goes but you're REALLY fucked if you're in the mountain west.

3. Take over state gov't at all levels, GOP and democrat. Start morphing it into your desired state; get pieces in place before pulling the plug with the feds.

4. Demand peaceful secession from the US and form your own country.

5. If you can't get the entire state, try to get a chunk of the state that no one wants and has no value to either the state and/or feds. If you have some rich people in your tribe, you might be able to straight up buy your own large chunk of sovereign land from the US/state gov't directly in a deal. They might be desperate for money/resources. Many local/state governments are doing this already; selling gov't assets to pay off huge debts.

Bottom line:

This is actually semi-feasible with some effort and patience. If you doubt that, keep in mind that this is just a smaller scale version of what Latin America has been doing to the US minus the secession bit. Get the welfare money, breed, take over gov't, and make rules that suit your interest = you win.

The thing is, you need to do this sooner rather than later. Eventually, the libtards will take over the MAGA strongholds that I listed. They did it to Arizonia and they are doing it in Idaho right now among other places. Libtards already have some small footholds in the places I mentioned (Jackson Hole, WY for example) so don't think what is good today will still be good tomorrow.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^The ugly part of that plan is that you're going to have to make those regions INCREDIBLY hostile to outsiders like deep-blue retards and the 3rd world "refugees" the Feds keep pushing to be settled in those areas.

And when I say hostile I don't mean decline to smile politely as they walk by. I mean all the stuff that flyover America has been accused of groundlessly for decades by the seaboard (((cultural ghetto pimps))). Push open carry like the bejeezus and refuse to buy-from or sell-to anyone that isn't carrying, for example. At least the men. Take the whole "we don't take kindly to your type 'round here" cliche to the next level. Run out business operators that cater to globalist pieces of shit fleeing from their seaboard messes without learning their lessons.

No organism that is inclusive by default ever survives long. From a cell to an immune system to an animal to family or tribe to a state or a nation, if the bar you set for entry is "sure, whatever, come on over if you feel like it" then the laws of nature will swallow you up and spit out the bones.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-13-2019 12:43 AM)aeroektar Wrote:  



Look at all those blue cancerous spots spread about our country (not the massive patches like the northeast and southern Cal). Those are the reason it will never be peaceful. Those people won't go quietly. They might be queer faggots but they will do anything to maintain their strangleholds, and they will find plenty of funding and a huge network of support.

Wow, that map is truly hard-hitting. It gives you a much more vivid idea of what's going on in USA as opposed to flat red/blue maps.

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(03-12-2019 01:55 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Yep.

I'd broaden that to not just be officers, but many of the careerists. Keep in mind however that access to the senior enlisted ranks is controlled by Masonic connections and that most of the careerist NCO's are masons.

The reason why this is concerning has been covered in depth in other threads ( like a certain 40-ish page thread in general) but suffice it to say that nobody who is actively involved in Masonry is on our side. Them and other secret "fraternal" organizations are one of the key control structures because they control access to positions of influence and anyone admitted to them will have been vetted by the other side.

Sort of, I think you're conflating Black Masons with "normal" Masons (I don't want to say "white" as they're open to all races, although most are white). I don't think the latter are an issue necessarily--the ones I've known have all been conservative, family oriented, religious, and self-sufficient. The Black Masons absolutely are an issue but from what I saw when I was in--and I could be wrong--it's pretty much restricted to certain communities, and not combat arms.

When the left talks about the US military "sending minorities to die" etc etc they leave out the fact that, while the military as a whole is pretty representative of the country's demographics as a whole, whites (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) are hugely overrepresented in combat arms and especially in SOF.

[Once Was Not]

(03-13-2019 12:51 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Notify Kona.

He lives on Cancer Island now.

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

One of the things I had to reconcile with is that I have always projected my better self onto the left in terms of what it was they really wanted to achieve. So when you say "we should divorce amicably so we can both be happy" you are misinterpreting who they are and what they stand for.

They want it all. The house, the car, the kids. All of it. Not just their share to use how they see fit. And they can only have all of it when you're in chains or dead.

The map above paints a vivid picture. Anyone who thinks we have not returned to the time of Lords living in city states is mistaken. The state borders in America are almost an abstraction now EXCEPT as a means to gain and maintain control of electoral zones to maintain the sham of democracy. The map above shows that in reality the elites live in their ivory towers and have imported a vast cadre of orcs and goblins to act as buffers against the peasantry to whom they are infinitely hostile.

Yeah, I know. In present day most conservatives want to be left alone and not deal with the many serious problems affecting the country. While liberals, even the moderates, want to totally destroy their enemies and bring all dissent under heel. They want that boot smashing the face of conservatives, forever.

But, perhaps many decades from now, when we are further along from the tipping point of the Empire of the United States, maybe people will feel differently. Right now the right is utterly impotent and subverted, but if that were to change the left would probably temper their ambitions and be happy living within city lines. If the right never gets back on it's feet then yeah, none of this will happen and we'll all be in gulags someday.

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(03-13-2019 03:11 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:36 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

In regards to the massive concentration of left of center population residing in large, especially coastal, cities. Perhaps the solution is these cities separating into their own city-states and governing themselves, implementing their own idealistic utopia ideals their population wants without burdening the rest of the nation or being stopped by the rural population. Of course the cities and everything else are codependent so trade deals would have to be made. Perhaps the liberal city-states could form a sort of coalition so we wouldn't need separate deals with each one like the states were burdened with in the early years of the union.

Honestly this seems like the easiest and most peaceful solution to this ever deepening political divide. It would also free up conservatives stuck in states dominated by one or more large cities. Californians would finally be liberated from the big coastal cities. New York from NYC. Illinois from Chicago, Florida from Miami and Tampa, etc. They get out of our way, we get out of theirs. All while preserving the economy and preventing a collapse by creating deals with the Liberal Socialist Progressive City States Union of America or whatever.

I think large sections of the country seceding would be a much messier, chaotic, and drawn out process.

I've proposed the liberal-city state solution just as described before but I don't think it's very realistic in retrospect.

Problems with liberal city-state(s) solution:

What makes you think the elites in cities are going to voluntarily give up larges parts of their state that they have supported and vice versa for country people supporting city people?

How do you split resources in a way where everyone is happy? Who gets the good stuff? Who gets the debt?

Everything has been set-up in a manner where city/suburb/rural area exists and complements each other. Where do you draw the line in purple suburbia?

City-states make sense from a political purity stand point but aren't really practical in implementation. You have WAY better odds of success starting a MAGA city-state in rural West Virginia for example, where no one wants to live, than convincing a growing demographic majority to break apart numerous states/cities in a hugely complicated manner.

Furthermore, I would argue that the true MAGA crowd in the USA is 30-35% tops. Of those, many will not be down with secession or won't be able to follow through even if they wanted to. But 5% of Trump voters (out of 63 million) is about 3 million people and that's all you need to take over certain states completely and therefore, is a good goal to shoot for. The 2018 mid-terms proved how MAGA the country really was so don't delude yourself into thinking half the country is gonna sign up for what you're selling.

Best realistic plan that can actually be executed:

1. Vote Yang for President. Get Yang bucks. Fuel for the fire. Bonus that it might accelerate a weakening of the federal gov't; making it easier to break off.

2. Take Yang Bucks and have a massive migration to one or more of a handful of states; places that are DEEP red and have low population numbers are probably best bet.

Here is the list of states that voted Trump 60% or higher in 2016 (highest at top)

West Virginia
Wyoming
Oklahoma
North Dakota
Kentucky
Alabama
South Dakota
Tennessee
Arkansas

Wyoming and North Dakota are probably best bets: they have populations less than 1 million, TONS of land that no one cares about or wants, are deep red, the culture is very individualistic/anti-federal gov't, and they have a large homogeneous racial block. In these places, you need very little money to survive. Wyoming is also leading the way on cryptocurrency regulations; which might make the transition from USD to some form of crypto usage more viable.

One major risk to the mountain west though is if Yellowstone blows up. But most people are fucked if that goes but you're REALLY fucked if you're in the mountain west.

3. Take over state gov't at all levels, GOP and democrat. Start morphing it into your desired state; get pieces in place before pulling the plug with the feds.

4. Demand peaceful secession from the US and form your own country.

5. If you can't get the entire state, try to get a chunk of the state that no one wants and has no value to either the state and/or feds. If you have some rich people in your tribe, you might be able to straight up buy your own large chunk of sovereign land from the US/state gov't directly in a deal. They might be desperate for money/resources. Many local/state governments are doing this already; selling gov't assets to pay off huge debts.

Bottom line:

This is actually semi-feasible with some effort and patience. If you doubt that, keep in mind that this is just a smaller scale version of what Latin America has been doing to the US minus the secession bit. Get the welfare money, breed, take over gov't, and make rules that suit your interest = you win.

The thing is, you need to do this sooner rather than later. Eventually, the libtards will take over the MAGA strongholds that I listed. They did it to Arizonia and they are doing it in Idaho right now among other places. Libtards already have some small footholds in the places I mentioned (Jackson Hole, WY for example) so don't think what is good today will still be good tomorrow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt

It's an interesting idea, although I don't think cutting yourself off from the sea is optimal (although it works for Switzerland I guess). A possible eventual realignment of both the US and Canada could include a contiguous conservative nation reaching from Alaska and down through central Canada, the American inland northwest and Midwest, and into Texas and whichever parts of the southeast are still salvageable; this separating leftie countries on the west coast (California to British Columbia) and east (Virginia to Ontario with Canada's Maritime provinces) and probably Hawaii and Quebec becoming independent countries.

You're very wrong about nobody wanting or needing the land in Wyoming and especially ND though... ND has some of the biggest oil/gas reserves in the US.

[Once Was Not]

(03-13-2019 03:11 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I've proposed the liberal-city state solution just as described before but I don't think it's very realistic in retrospect.

Problems with liberal city-state(s) solution:

What makes you think the elites in cities are going to voluntarily give up larges parts of their state that they have supported and vice versa for country people supporting city people?

How do you split resources in a way where everyone is happy? Who gets the good stuff? Who gets the debt?

Everything has been set-up in a manner where city/suburb/rural area exists and complements each other. Where do you draw the line in purple suburbia?

City-states make sense from a political purity stand point but aren't really practical in implementation. You have WAY better odds of success starting a MAGA city-state in rural West Virginia for example, where no one wants to live, than convincing a growing demographic majority to break apart numerous states/cities in a hugely complicated manner.

Furthermore, I would argue that the true MAGA crowd in the USA is 30-35% tops. Of those, many will not be down with secession or won't be able to follow through even if they wanted to. But 5% of Trump voters (out of 63 million) is about 3 million people and that's all you need to take over certain states completely and therefore, is a good goal to shoot for. The 2018 mid-terms proved how MAGA the country really was so don't delude yourself into thinking half the country is gonna sign up for what you're selling.

Right, moving to a conservative stronghold is the best plan for right now, and something I am working on as a priority. Hopefully within a year for me. I wouldn't mind some Yang-Bucks provided they weren't made useless by prices being increased on literally everything. But like you said, down the road it will not hold up and I'm betting not even long enough to have a family and kids without the left causing major problems. City-States would be much, much further down the line when the zeitgeist of the country has changed and conflict between political lines has gotten beyond a containable situation. Right now secession is unconscionable to 99% of people and we're still clinging to the old days as evidence of our prosperity. Hell we talk about WW2 in our yearly "State of the Union"" as if it's relevant anymore.

As for your points. I definitely don't have a fleshed out plan on how to distribute resources. That would be a plan developed by many people and organizations.

I don't think liberals in big cities give two shits about the backwards rural people outside the city limits who they hate so much. They would probably be relieved to have a real enforced border between them. And yeah, the city limits exist right? There's your border. Debt? Divided up by population, no reason to make it complicated, debt per person.

The problem with individual states breaking away is that you're taking the large pockets of left wing population with you and whatever military exists within the state. You also risk being cut off from the sea. Ideally it would all happen at once and we'd get large swaths of states making new countries, but it likely won't. Messy, messy, messy. City-States would be much more contained and would leave on good terms since we both would still need each other. The country could stay relatively intact as well since only small bits would be breaking off.

[Curunír]

(03-13-2019 05:06 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:43 AM)aeroektar Wrote:  



Look at all those blue cancerous spots spread about our country (not the massive patches like the northeast and southern Cal). Those are the reason it will never be peaceful. Those people won't go quietly. They might be queer faggots but they will do anything to maintain their strangleholds, and they will find plenty of funding and a huge network of support.

Wow, that map is truly hard-hitting. It gives you a much more vivid idea of what's going on in USA as opposed to flat red/blue maps.

Is that the Sears tower?

[Easy_C]

(03-13-2019 10:57 AM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:55 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Yep.

I'd broaden that to not just be officers, but many of the careerists. Keep in mind however that access to the senior enlisted ranks is controlled by Masonic connections and that most of the careerist NCO's are masons.

The reason why this is concerning has been covered in depth in other threads ( like a certain 40-ish page thread in general) but suffice it to say that nobody who is actively involved in Masonry is on our side. Them and other secret "fraternal" organizations are one of the key control structures because they control access to positions of influence and anyone admitted to them will have been vetted by the other side.

Sort of, I think you're conflating Black Masons with "normal" Masons (I don't want to say "white" as they're open to all races, although most are white). I don't think the latter are an issue necessarily--the ones I've known have all been conservative, family oriented, religious, and self-sufficient. The Black Masons absolutely are an issue but from what I saw when I was in--and I could be wrong--it's pretty much restricted to certain communities, and not combat arms.

When the left talks about the US military "sending minorities to die" etc etc they leave out the fact that, while the military as a whole is pretty representative of the country's demographics as a whole, whites (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) are hugely overrepresented in combat arms and especially in SOF.

Are you sure about that?

I might have been combat arms. Promotion to senior NCO ranks was governed primarily by admission to the masons.




Here's one other factor to consider: the left made a significant strategic mistake by siccing BLM on cops and starting the whole "cops vs. black people" narrative. That whole cops vs. minorities narrative alone is going to push a significant number of them to whatever side they believe is against minorities.

Granted a lot of the cops are roid-raging bullies who have no problem with authoritarianism. That won't necessarily matter if the left keeps up the BLM narrative because those types of cops are stupid, and reactive thinkers who will react by hating the Democrat's voting base.

[The Black Knight]

(03-13-2019 04:29 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^The ugly part of that plan is that you're going to have to make those regions INCREDIBLY hostile to outsiders like deep-blue retards and the 3rd world "refugees" the Feds keep pushing to be settled in those areas.

And when I say hostile I don't mean decline to smile politely as they walk by. I mean all the stuff that flyover America has been accused of groundlessly for decades by the seaboard (((cultural ghetto pimps))). Push open carry like the bejeezus and refuse to buy-from or sell-to anyone that isn't carrying, for example. At least the men. Take the whole "we don't take kindly to your type 'round here" cliche to the next level. Run out business operators that cater to globalist pieces of shit fleeing from their seaboard messes without learning their lessons.

No organism that is inclusive by default ever survives long. From a cell to an immune system to an animal to family or tribe to a state or a nation, if the bar you set for entry is "sure, whatever, come on over if you feel like it" then the laws of nature will swallow you up and spit out the bones.

I agree.

This is one of the flaws of the current US system; that one can travel from one state to another with no restrictions. The EU does this in a sense as well and look at how well that is working out.

In these new MAGA invaded states and prior to secession, best thing would be to see what worked before in other states and disgusted libtards. Banning tranny bathrooms and getting rid of gay protections sure got them fired up a while back to the point where California companies said they would pull business if the states didn't fold.

(03-13-2019 11:10 AM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt

It's an interesting idea, although I don't think cutting yourself off from the sea is optimal (although it works for Switzerland I guess).

You're very wrong about nobody wanting or needing the land in Wyoming and especially ND though... ND has some of the biggest oil/gas reserves in the US.

Sea access might be less important given future drone tech. Having a water front could be a burden as well with rising ocean levels.

As for state resources, that is why I said you might only be able to get a chunk of state land instead of the entire state. Although, oil/gas might not be nearly as lucrative in the future (or the opposite - who knows).

(03-13-2019 11:28 AM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

.I don't think liberals in big cities give two shits about the backwards rural people outside the city limits who they hate so much. They would probably be relieved to have a real enforced border between them. And yeah, the city limits exist right? There's your border. Debt? Divided up by population, no reason to make it complicated, debt per person.

The US can't even build a wall with Trump, a technical majority in Congress, and 2 years of time. And that's as simple as it gets.

Breaking apart cites/states is in a whole another universe of difficulty. Just the mere discussion of it could set-off a violent conflict. Have you ever known someone that has gone through a nasty divorce? Think like that except on a way bigger scale and people not afraid to kill the other person. If you kill someone, it's not breaking the law; it's winning the war for your side of the team.

Quote:

The problem with individual states breaking away is that you're taking the large pockets of left wing population with you and whatever military exists within the state.

Hence why I said the aim should be to get 3 million or 5% of Trump 2016 voters. You can completely overwhelm low population states like Wyoming and North Dakota.

State populations under one million:

Delaware - 961,939
South Dakota - 869,666
North Dakota - 755,393
Alaska - 739,795
Vermont - 623,657
Wyoming -579,315

With 3 million, you could completely overtake with super-majorities Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota regardless of what left-wing presence was there already and/or was en-route from places like California. Might also be wise to focus in one state to have supreme numbers with votes (like 90% majority MAGA / pro-secession people). And these are states that are already pretty conservative and have a strong foundation for a new MAGA country. You can do it in a place like Vermont for example... but you'd have a lot of dissents to deal with while also being surrounded by many big blue populated states in New England.

It's as simple as convincing people to move and vote in their new state. That's it.

Get the Yang Bucks and it gets 10 times easier to convince people to move.

Furthermore, Yang actually has acknowledged how white people will be a minority in the 2040's, that this isn't normal for a nation and people will NOT suddenly get along and therefore violence could break out from certain disenfranchised white people. So, a vote for Yang is also voting for someone who understands and acknowledges the brutal truth of reality of becoming a minority in your own country and he might actually be sympathetic to a state secession to avoid violence. Here is the video:

He also wants to regulate social media as a public utility (protect free speech) and that will also allow you to get your message out more effectively.

Bottom line: Vote Yang if you want a possible MAGA state option. Vote Trump if you want the same old bullshit. Crazy... but it's true.

[Deepdiver]

Only the Chicago/Milwaukee metroplex sits on a large body of easily filtered Potable Water while the Major Cities on the Coasts all need their Fuel Piped and food/supplies Trucked/Rail transported in and their water is served by major Aqueducts - underground and above ground. Point is the leftist socialists instigated by the Chinese Freaking Red Communists need to be careful what they wish for. It would not take but a subset of 25 Million+/- living disciplined Military Veteran Militiamen to cut the cities off at key highway and rail bridges and easily turn off their water supplies for months.

In the words of the legendary General Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf when asked how he planned to handle the "battle hardened" Iraqi Army - he said even the toughest soldiers lose their will to fight when cut off from food and water in as little as two weeks. The USA will never break up - millions of loyal capable Military/Veteran alpha men who have taken the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution with their lives will never allow it. The Leftists need to be very careful what they wish for in their endless spewing of mental libtard masturbation.

[aeroektar]

(03-13-2019 10:59 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

Only the Chicago/Milwaukee metroplex sits on a large body of easily filtered Potable Water while the Major Cities on the Coasts all need their Fuel Piped and food/supplies Trucked/Rail transported in and their water is served by major Aqueducts - underground and above ground. Point is the leftist socialists instigated by the Chinese Freaking Red Communists need to be careful what they wish for. It would not take but a subset of 25 Million+/- living disciplined Military Veteran Militiamen to cut the cities off at key highway and rail bridges and easily turn off their water supplies for months.

In the words of the legendary General Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf when asked how he planned to handle the "battle hardened" Iraqi Army - he said even the toughest soldiers lose their will to fight when cut off from food and water in as little as two weeks. The USA will never break up - millions of loyal capable Military/Veteran alpha men who have taken the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution with their lives will never allow it. The Leftists need to be very careful what they wish for in their endless spewing of mental libtard masturbation.

Of coarse it will. The country has already split, we are as deeply and equally divided as ever, a true tipping just hasn't been reached yet.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-13-2019 10:59 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

Only the Chicago/Milwaukee metroplex sits on a large body of easily filtered Potable Water while the Major Cities on the Coasts all need their Fuel Piped and food/supplies Trucked/Rail transported in and their water is served by major Aqueducts - underground and above ground. Point is the leftist socialists instigated by the Chinese Freaking Red Communists need to be careful what they wish for. It would not take but a subset of 25 Million+/- living disciplined Military Veteran Militiamen to cut the cities off at key highway and rail bridges and easily turn off their water supplies for months.

In the words of the legendary General Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf when asked how he planned to handle the "battle hardened" Iraqi Army - he said even the toughest soldiers lose their will to fight when cut off from food and water in as little as two weeks. The USA will never break up - millions of loyal capable Military/Veteran alpha men who have taken the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution with their lives will never allow it. The Leftists need to be very careful what they wish for in their endless spewing of mental libtard masturbation.

If America doesn't split then it will continue its descent into a third world communist shithole outcropping of Mexico with nary a single issue arising great enough to trigger a rebellion.

The oathkeepers will never go against DC as long as the frog is boiled slowly enough.