Any ideas on a haven?
My choices would be New Zealand or Thailand.
New Zealand because it is far away from the potential war troubles, a good place to educate your children and overall not too crowded. Good infrastructure and lots of land available. When the crisis is mild this would be the best for our circumstances. Visa requirements are high.
If the crisis is very bad, i think Thailand would be better. Lots of food, and very low energy needs. No heating or cooling necessary. Food almost on your doorstep, als a good infrastructure and people that are used to live in small communities all their live. Big cities excluded. When a crisis hits them they just go back to their parents or other family to help or live of the farms. Schooling is not so great, homeschooling would be an option. Visa requirements are very low.
Anyone who wants to know something about Thailand, ask and i will answer.
sorry gyro but i am an english major
and the most popular mistake in the english language(such as it is)
is the ddouble nnegative.
so do you mean to say we are screwed or are not screwed
[quote=treah]I find great interest in this discussion. It says a lot about the American attitude in general….that we think we have such an inherent right to just stroll into any country we feel like[/quote]
What are you talking about? It’s quite the opposite…people think they can stroll over here…and of course our government just lets them stroll on in…part of the nwo plan to destabilize and create dissent/fear in americans.
On the contrary, I don’t think I have an inherent right at all. I’m evaluating different options based on their requirements. I have the ability to go almost anywhere because those countries "want me" at least as determined by their statutes. I know when I get there that I’ll be an outsider, that I’ll need to obey the law, that I’ll be a visitor in someone else’s home, that I’ll never have full citizenship rights, etc. Compare that to the folks coming here who demand full participation, stage political protests, demand money from US citizens (and they get a LOT).
Machinehead and Brainless – thanks for your thoughts. That’s what I’m looking for…just wanted to start a conversation about pros/cons of different options.
Echoing other contributors, if I had to go anywhere then it would be New Zealand or Sweden too.
I worked in New Zealand a couple of years ago and would go back tomorrow except for family and friends. My father was unwell while we were there and it felt a long way from ‘home’. That said, it is a beautiful country and from my experience full of great people with a can-do attitude. I think its a politically stable, open and accessible society. And arguably the oldest democracy on the planet as it was the first country to give women the vote.
I go to Sweden every year to see family and its another great place to live, for many of the same reasons as NZ. Just substitute ice hockey for rugby as your sporting passion.
But I also agree with ckessel and Treah – the future is a local, sustainable community, wherever it be. If you really have to go, then go, but if at all possible seek out/create and contribute to a local community.
Well, having been to most European countries and Asian countries, I can honestly say I’d rather ride it out in a place close to where I am now.
If anyone is really considering a move however, you need to do it quickly. Once things start falling apart for real, how open do you think other countries will be to mass exodus? You think that our border patrol sucks and only rounds up people and ships them back….most third world and other places that don’t want people immigrating to their countries handle it alot more sternly.
Just my $.02 – it don’t think we will end up in a Mad Max scenario overnight. I see a gradual decay and slide into a shattered state and people being forced to turn to co-op communities. It will be messy, some will live, some will die, some will try to forcibly take over co-ops – some will be successful and others will die trying.
That said – Colorado’s Front Range has a lot to offer. Lots of open arable land, game and plenty of year round sun exposure to facilitate solar, plus the katabatic winds rolling off the Rockies will power windmills. And if you are away from Denver, the population density is fairly thin.
Something to consider.
Safe haven money: use stamp scrip to buy bad mortgages and shares in failing companies; use the income out of stamp sales to cover and diminish the losses. Everybody who uses the scrip pays a little for the bad investments made in the past, but when a crisis doesn’t give one a choice, one has to accept anyway. It’s another bailout the banking system doesn’t deserve, but at least it will disgust them.
[quote=Dogs in a pile]Just my $.02 – it don’t think we will end up in a Mad Max scenario overnight. I see a gradual decay and slide into a shattered state and people being forced to turn to co-op communities. It will be messy, some will live, some will die, some will try to forcibly take over co-ops – some will be successful and others will die trying.[/quote]
I generally agree, but the feds will step in once the gradual process starts. They will try to prevent it. They will be the ones trying to "forcibly take over" and stopping the natural evolution of society. They will choose tyranny over what they think is anarchy. Unfortunately they’ve been conditioned to fear local control and they see it as anarchy. Of course we know they’re wrong…it’s not anarchy…it’s just an active citizenry. The citizenry will eventually win which will result in us finally working out a new society based on a new sense of local community, but only after a lot of oppression.
Ok. I asked about international havens…but there’s currently a less than 50/50 chance of me choosing that option because I do want to participate in the solution and because I love community and want to stay.
What are people’s thoughts on the best place to be domestically?? I don’t think there’s a right answer here, but I think it’s worth chatting about.
– front range? Dogs-in-pile suggested it. I agree with all his listed factors, but I think the population has become too dense. The front range used to be one of my sales territories and it felt like too many people in the money-chasing rat race who wouldn’t know how to take care of themselves in a collapse.
– Montana? I have a rental in Bozeman. I went there initially as a haven from corporate life. Was awesome. But after a while felt isolated. But that’s precisely what I want in TSHTF. Small community. Hardy types. Lots of sun. It has a coop community already. There’s a good amount of patriot types, but there’s also a good amount of displaced Californians who wouldn’t have a clue. 🙂 The only thing not ideal is the cold and short growing season.
– Illinois? (actually anywhere in the industrial midwest or the northeast) I’m only listing this because it’s where family is. otherwise, I think it would be horrible in TSHTF. My family is in down-state, nowhere near Chicago, but it’s still a densely populated area compared to the intermountain region. Plus midwesterners are generally trained to be passive, respect authority too much, trust what they hear from the media, give too much benefit of the doubt to police, etc (not to generalize about everybody, but that’s my experience as a kid and when I visit now). In other words, I think tyranny would be too easy for the government in this region.
– the old south? I have rental properties in Tennessee. The south is densely populated like the midwest, but people there have a history of independence, men are armed, I think they would resist oppressive force from the national govt.
– the northwest? I’m in seattle now…I won’t be anywhere close to a big city as TSHTF gets closer, but could stay in the region.
The only real way to avoid the (likely) future of heavy-handed martial law by federalized police/army in the US, is to really, really, push the Constitution – hard, and follow the 2nd Amendment, which specifies that the State Governors are to keep in a state of ready, "the militia of the several states".
The "militia of the several states" are our true "homeland security" forces, and these militias, under control of the State Governors, are all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, each individually armed.
This is the US Constitution speaking.
Further, today, each and every Serviceman swears an allegiance to protect and follow the US Constitution, and most (particularly under a voluntary enlistment) truly believe in THAT. They are sworn to protect it against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.
Many if not most Servicemen, understand that martial law may place them in a position where they may need to seriously re-evaluate just WHO domestic enemies might be.
In other words, most understand that they are not to just follow a tyrant (Federal or otherwise), nor to leaders of armies and police forces by which they are dictated to.
(On the other hand, if our military and police forces EVER change their allegiance oath, then TSHTF will be full-on).
Until then, the best hope, it seems, is to push for the re-establishment of the lawful, constitutional "militia of the several states", in full accordance with the 2nd Amendment.
Instead of Homeland Security being dictated by a Federalized coup of the Executive branch, the Governors in each State are required to keep such forces under their control as the "militia of the several states".
Homeland Security offices and officers should never have fallen under control of the Federal government, and they are not all…yet.
Instead, most State Troopers, County Sheriffs, and Municipal Police might, under TSHTF conditions, consider themselves "local" citizens first, and jackboots of the Federalized police second.
If you haven’t visited this site, you should:
or Dr Edwin Vieira’s site:
It may not be too late….yet.