There will be a rush for the south and they’ll be mostly urban liberals. Funny thing is that most of the entitlement crowd would end up dying in the cities while rioting or waiting for rescue. A lot of urbanites have a fear of flyover country anyway so if they leave the cities, most would stick to the highways.
Without a doubt. Interstates are all they know, and that's going to lead to heartbreak on their end in an emergency.
“Funny thing is that most of the entitlement crowd would end up dying in the cities while rioting or waiting for rescue. A lot of urbanites have a fear of flyover country anyway so if they leave the cities, most would stick to the highways.”
Very good points, both of them.
I believe the places that will have the best chance for survival will have several characteristics:
- They will be a considerable distance from major highways (interstates). Figure at least 40-50 miles from the nearest interstate highway.
- They will be a considerable distance from major, or even modest, cities. By “modest” cities, I mean cities that are large enough to have “suburbs” around them.
- They will consist not only of rural areas, but small towns (and possibly “very small” cities). Isolated small towns of “non-diverse” residents may offer the best chances, as I believe there will remain enough sense of “community” and “tradition” amongst the citizens that they will be able to effectively organize to protect each other against “intruders”.
The absolute _worst_ places to be will be ANYwhere there are large cities chock full of “benefits consumers” and illegals. Simply being in the suburbs won’t help because regardless of how well-prepared a few may be, they won’t be able to “resist the hungry hordes”, so to speak.
Although the old Boy Scout motto comes to mind, I sense that the best chance of survival in the event of a real and total collapse will depend less on how well-prepared you are, and more on simply “where you happen to be”.
In the apocalypse, location will become destiny.