It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Factions of a Broken America, whose side you on?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:35 AM
i cant remember anytime since ive been allive that talk about an economic collapse and meltdown of the united states being at such a height. collapse on a scale of USSR proportions.... dont think it cant happen to us as im sure the soviets thought the same thing.. what factions will arise in the power struggle that could come? will the us stay held together like a vice by a corprate or military dictatorship or will we break up into several countries? here is a list of factions that may play a role in the struggle that just may be right around the corner....

1. Federal Governement: basically TPTB, your ameicans who remain loyal to the current elitist government. i think this would compose most of your military and a 1/3 rd of the population

2. Constitutionalist Militias: these would be the main opposition i think in a power struggle with TPTB. they would also have the support of a good chunk of the civilian populace..

3. Southern Seperatists: neo-confederate militias who would back the creation of a 2nd confederate states of america. i think this would be very popular in the south.

4. Texas Seperatists: this would be very popular in texas right up to the state level i believe if a break up would occur.

5. California Seperatists: the same case as texas, i think itd be very poopular with the common people and as a nation, california could more than sustain itself, this we already know.

6. Left-wing Militias: these would be your left leaning democrats, communists and anarchists.

7. Right-wing militias: too radical to be with the constitutionalists, these would be your christian fundamentalists, your pro-white neo-nazi groups, kkk and the like.

8. Other States or Regional Movements: there may be some states who wish to create thier own nations or regions (like cascadia) who wish to seperate as a whole. there may also be ethnic militias such as hispanic or native american armed groups who fight for thier own causes.

am i missing anybody? whose side would you be on and why??

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:38 AM
Whichever side promises to leave me alone.

Choosing any one of these 'sides' just gets you right back to where you started.

I'm not picking up a gun for anybody but myself and I don't have any delusions about shaping the world for some god whether it's a supernatural manifestation or something tangible like a dollar.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:55 AM
I'd probably have to go with...

2. Constitutionalist Militias

A return to the original US before it got Incorporated...

Tiny Tiny Micro-Government...Large Freedoms...

You know what I mean...right?

[edit on 10/8/2009 by Hx3_1963]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

I am going to side with number 2 as well. Although I do not beling to one because I feel the movement isnt organzied as well as it should be. There are no county, regional, state-regional, or national levels of these organzaations. Kind of like the miltary Platoons, companies, battlions, brigades, divisons, and a corp. As well as political party that can use there "military" In time of need. When something like this occurs I will look for one to join.

If I am wrong please let me know.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:29 PM
The vast majority of military members will NOT back number one. They will be spread out amongst the others, mostly #2

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:35 PM
I think it's pretty apparent to which group I would belong.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

I think your a little wrong regarding #6.

True Anarchist's call for no state. The original meaning is derived the Greek word anarchos, without rulers.

There are minarchist libertarians (like myself) who favor very minimal government.

The term 'anarchist' and anarchy has been bastardized over the years so that many people think it is just total chaos and people running wild.

The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[20][21] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[22] + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein).

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).[1][2][3][4][5] Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[6]


[edit on 8-10-2009 by lucentenigma]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:10 PM
A tree once said:

"I am on no ones side, because no one is on my side."

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
A tree once said:

"I am on no ones side, because no one is on my side."

Just as the fall of the Communist Soviet Russia has shown, when the chips are down, the side that everyone is unilaterally going to side with is Numero Uno, being they and themselves.

People with similar ideologies may group together, but for the most part everyone is going to be looking out for what is in their own best interests.

In America you'll have 112,000,000 different sides (number of households in America), all of them looking out for their own interests.

But yes, there will also be regional autonomous City-States. State of Jefferson in Southern Oregon/Northern California is but an example, along with Cascadia in Northern Oregon/Washington/British Columbia being another. The problem with the State of Jefferson, for instance, is that although such an autonomous BioRegion would politically be sound and stable, and perhaps even sustainable, however economically it would be a disaster as the GDP of that region is negligible (unless you consider the #1 crop which is an illegal substance).

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:30 PM
Well, IMO the vast majority would be with the Constitutionalist Militia - myself included if I was so inclined to "Choose" a side. Not to derail - but does this NOT harken back to what John Titor was saying about the breakup of the US into 6 "zones"? The further we get into this thing, the more Titor-like this is all becoming. And for the record, I never took any of that seriously... until recently anyway.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

I would go with the group that guarantees that they won't regulate my life or my rights.

That's all I want. I wish that's what other people wanted.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:43 PM
Just a few short years ago who would have thought we would have a thread like this?

Today a political writer that has been around a long time had an article on Newsmax which was wishful thinking about a military coup, it got pulled from the site fairly quick, but again another indication of the deep poopy we are in as a nation.

I wonder myself if any of the brass in the pentagon have considered they should wander by the White House and have a friendly chat with the communist in chief?

I would go with the constitutionalists. The founding fathers did a really good job of writing that document and with the exception of maybe making really clear the second amendment I would not change a word of it.
Unfortunately it appears we may have to end up making a decision about which group to line up with.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

Except when Republics generally collapse it's an inward implosion, that is to say, the seat of power is not expanded outward to 112 million groups, is directed inward as a "last ditch effort" to save the society by placing power at a consolidated source. History dictates to us that before our civilization were to collapse, it would first experience a period of totalitarian control by one source of power to usher in an age of imperial expansion/aggression.

The idea that the US Government would one day roll over and die is absurd, to much power, wealth, and important people to just think they'd give up and go home. This is also an era of instantaneous information .. it is, I believe, literally impossible for the US to fragment. There may be uprisings (I believe American's are far to weak and cowardly to though) but the uprising would be squashed, and like the Montana Freemen at the first instance of defeat they will run away with their tails between their legs, else, end up in prison or dead.

Our vision of a Romanticized America were strong willed Americans defend their personal liberties is just that, Romanticized dreaming. We are fat, docile, pathetic and weak. We would let someone rob us blind, rape our children's futures, raise us in ignorance and beat us into submission long before we raise a hand to end off the blows from the Federal Government. That gallant American notion of hard working, strong willed, fight to the death citizen died many years ago... America as we know it, Romanticized as it is, will never again be seen.

We utterly deserve every bit of hell we are experiencing, and are yet to experience.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

You did miss one... For years now there has been talk of a northern Mexican state or two might join with the Southwest states and form our own country.... that is much more likely than washington will care to admit

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM
to daddybare: The last flag on there is the flag of la raza. "hispanic nation" iused this flag to represent the mexican/hispanic southwest who would likely rise up with the rest of us in their own interests..

to lucentenigma: I know the ideology of anarchism.. are you familiar with the spanish civil war? anarchists organzied and fought on a side in that war with the communists and republicans.. i believe something similar would occur here

i_am_spartacus: i believe you are wrong there, you must remember, the vast majority of people are ignorant and peaceful. they will look to whom can provide security and there will be no one to provide it better than the TPTB with all the money, the men and equipment. i believe personal differences aside most military will stay with TPTB because of the same reason, security its not like TPTB wont take care of thier own. they want to win, not lose and in such a war will be recognized internationaly as the legitimate government of america until proven otherwise which will garner int'l support (troops, support in the form of food, healthcare etc.)

[edit on 8-10-2009 by TheCoffinman]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:38 PM
actually i did forget one group:


The "private security" mercenaries who will fight for anyone that pays the highest..

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:47 PM
As much as I love Anarchy for allowing me to blow stuff up and NOT have the bacon-makin' popo come after me, I'd have to side with the Constitutionalist Militias. Mainly because I hate the 'Controlled-by-banks-and-not-so-free-America'.

Either that, or I would go for the Mercs. XD

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

I would clearly be a Constitutionalist Militia member.... I support the constitution and do not back down at all from that...

When and if the government does cross the line.... all hell is or could break loose...

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
I can easily see 2, 3, and 4 all combining. It's not like they haven't done it before.

This time, there will be no damned Yankee army tearing ass through the South.

And wouldn't be surprised to see states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire join as well as West Virginia, Kentucky, and possibly Ohio and Missouri.

Sure be for some interesting times.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:07 PM
You forgot about vermont, Vermonts had a really long secession movement that is probably right up there with texas and the south. Also the hilly, mostly rural terrain of VT is very similar to vietnam, lending itself to a protracted guerrilla war. Also the Long Trail runs the full length of the state and would make an excellent route of travel. In addition to that, all though it is known for its phish population, VT has almost NO GUN LAWS. And people in VT exercise their 2nd amendment. Unlike CA we can buy AK's...

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in