I would like to add my two cents to this discussion. The picture of collapsing society is complex and in some cases is a combination of worst case scenarios in a short period of time. The idea of united survivalists, as a base for a new American nation emerging from the ashes, is attractive, but it might not be the case if nuclear contamination on worldwide scale (nuclear war), nuclear winter (due to eruption of super volcanoes or nuclear war), airborn mutation of viruses like MERS, Ebola, or others coincide with the economic SHTF on a global scale. The estimation that 10% from these seven billion people on Earth will survive is a bit overestimated. In order to sustain a nation, you need a total fertility rate (TFR) more than 1.35, and the most desirable is 2.1, plus you need an even bigger rate in order to grow. The unknown factors that will worsen the recovery could be too many in order to see fast recovery within a generation or two. I would like to stress that if the survival rate on global scale is 1-2 % and if the survivals are spread over a vast geographical area, these survivalists of the X-factored Armagedon (economy collapse, global war, pandemia, bee hives extinction, asteroid impact, solar EMP, or some combination of these events) might never end up united or growing in numbers, especially if the environmental factors hinder the birthrate growth. The notion of an external enemy, like foreign troops to step on U.S. territory, is a bit too optimistic in this scenario because the rest of the world nations will be too overwhelmed with cascading disasters in order to assume the role of foreign enemy to invade the U.S. after the collapse. If any foreign nations survive, or the remnants of these nations survive, they will have far more serious problems than invading North America. In general, I would consider less than a 1% survival rate for the world population and less than 0.5% total fertility rate for generations until the environmental factors improve. My opinion is that all these cascading events will make the idea of the emergence of a new social system on a global or continental scale unreasonable, at least for centuries. Best regards, – L.I.
o o o
Very interesting response. Perhaps your readers would like to read the Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce, (aka Boston T. Party). It’s a most enlightening book about the flaws in our Constitution that I have ever read. I highly recommend it. Sincerely, – H.L.
o o o
I’m sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the author’s contention that a “United States“ will eventually reform. Here in Crook County in the People’s Republic of Illinois, that’s just not going to happen. The reason is simple. There is a large portion of people who are dependent on the government for their survival, and when the U.S. collapses, they will be the first to go. After this, the remaining “preppers” will be intent on creating their self-sufficient communities in order to survive. These communities, just like most preppers, want to go it alone. Why? Because deep down they never want themselves or their progeny to have to support someone else who just does not want to work. The treaty thing might work, but another USA? Never! Once bit, twice shy. Respectfully – An organic gardener
Hugh Replies: It may not be what you think. Many Patriots and preppers have begun to withdraw from the system as they recognize that it is close to being broken beyond repair (many believe it has already reached that point). When the time comes to rebuild, they will be there for that rebuilding process. In a way, you can think of it as a political election. Eventually, you reach the point where you refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils” when two miserable candidates have been placed before you (i.e. Obama vs. Romney). Every election, the support parties call my house and I tell them the same thing. “I don’t care how miserable the other party is. If you can’t run an ethical campaign with a candidate that has high moral standards, I cannot support you.”