Don't be so certain that "small" towns are any safer than cities

I see alot of posts about people preparing for whatever's to come, by moving to rural areas. IMO it would be easier and make more sense to actually start taking out the small towns first. It's just seems easier to isolate and takeover without causing a big uproar. If you go after the big cities first, the secret is out and plans are made, individuals become masses, something I'm sure TPTB would rather not have happen. These are just the thoughts of a mad (yes, as in crazy lol) woman but howwould you approach the matter if you were in TPTB shoes?

reply to post by DivineFem


I would say take the bigger cities first, catch them by surprize..... they are more fortified with a larger number of people poesing a bigger threat, also to many windows and vantage points to reap havoc with occuping forces.

reply to post by DivineFem


From a strategic standpoint, the cities should be taken out of play first. Small towns are more self sustaining than the average city as they are agricultural based, not service based. Regardless of whether you are a rebel or the PTB...we all need food.

Also, rural folk are also disinclined toward city folk (and vice-versa) so they would be easier to bend toward the way of thinking that, "You have to keep those city folk away from your town! They've been infected by a disease of which we know nothing about, yet."

Most rural folk are kind hearted people, but when they feel that there is a threat to their town and way of life, it tends to get their dander up. That can be used to further divide the overall populace.

I live in rural Northern Maine, surrounded by woods & potato fields. Lots of wildlife to hunt. I agree there may be certain advantages to either big city or rural. In a populated city there will be a mass uprising with hundreds of thousands if not millions of angry citizens. But I feel you can be more organized in a small community like where I live. Not to mention a place to hunt.

The historical data from the collapse of the Roman EMpire indicates that those who will fare best are those in

- Rural areas
- Defensible towns
- Place of no strategic level to anyone
- Not near a key resource or facility like steel industry, major airport, arm base etc..
- Place that are more than 3.5 days walk from any major population centres (the furthest a normal, unit person can walk without food)
- Places near a river
- On a road so it can be reached by car and affords a retreat in a crisis.

A great such place is Mayo in the Yukon.

reply to post by DivineFem


I would say they would go after cities and suburbs first considering every good ole boy n girl and their great grannies have guns and actually know how to use them.

reply to post by Raelsatu


If the PTB decided a certain cities populace had become to unruly and started mob rule, who is to say that the gloves would come off and say drop a MOAB into the middle of the crowd. (Of course, all the while blaming someone else).

I believe that most Military members would balk at such a idea and openly rebel themselves, but there is always one who would do such a thing.

Once done though, the PTB would have signed their own death certificate.

Thanks to everyone for your replies, it's always nice to hear real opinions.

reply to post by DivineFem




Its on atopic that may be of some truth or importance in the near future.... you know the sad thing is, I have a military friend that would gun down his own hood if ordered to do so..... his wife and I, whom is also military figures he would be the first one to go down if such things were ever ordered. We would drop him like an empty magizine.

Originally posted by DivineFem how would you approach the matter if you were in TPTB shoes?

Cut off the power to the big cities and secure the power stations...

A month without power and anarchy will destroy the city from within


and send in the drones to take out the small towns

I would say TPTB would go after the small communities and rural areas first. They would be the biggest and most immediate threat should they start to form their own independent foothold.

The more crowded areas would be easier to control because they tend to cluster together looking for leaders among many people that do not even know that can lead them astray. They are also are easier to put down since should bombing be necessary, can take out large swaths at once.. Just bomb out a whole area.


The rural areas would be more dangerous because everyone is closer together and knows each other, and there would not be the possibility of any infiltrators trying to betray the group.

They tend to live spread out and would be harder to bomb.

Look at the small groups in the rural country side for examples on who was a danger to TPTB and were kicked out

I've got a good one they seem to be increasing the number of UAVs the world over. You use the drones to lock down the rural areas until you can take the cities then spread out of them to the country.

Originally posted by bakedbluedevil
I've got a good one they seem to be increasing the number of UAVs the world over. You use the drones to lock down the rural areas until you can take the cities then spread out of them to the country.

I'll see your "Good one" and raise ya.

While they may have drones and servicing tech, it is all only for a finite time. Eventually they will fail due to overuse and the lack of replacement parts.

Using drones to kill the farmers doesn't put food on the table. And it really isn't cost effective either.

If I were the attacking facton I would first have the people WANT to leave and migrate to a place with less of a defensive position, like tell them there is some major heqalth risk to stqay in one area and set up FEMA camps or somewhere where people would choose to go. The ones left behind would be easy pickings, and it would leave most of the city intact. For resistance groups, cutting supies short combined with the thermal imaging sats, and drones, could be isolated and destroyed on contacft with little or no casulities.

in a reality situation. i would expect them to start taking out the private armies, militias. i am sure they already have a database on everyone in one. and since most of them are in rural locations. they will go for the rural setting and the militias first. imho.

reply to post by letscit


Yeah well hopefully we never have news of that magnitude.... ah what the future holds.

Originally posted by DivineFem
I see alot of posts about people preparing for whatever's to come, by moving to rural areas. IMO it would be easier and make more sense to actually start taking out the small towns first. It's just seems easier to isolate and takeover without causing a big uproar.

This would only be true if it was done slowly and gradually, over a space of years, which hasn't happened. Even in the current day and age, distance to a certain extent still prevents a rapid crackdown in all of the outlying rural areas.

The cabal have two major weaknesses which most people forget about; one mental, and the other logistical.

The mental weakness is that they generally only think in monolithic, centralised terms. They want to create a singular, centralised global system, and this in terms of complete defiance of how Nature itself usually operates. They tend towards centralisation organisationally, at every possible turn. Cities are an element of their design; large centralised camps, large centralised armed forces, large centralised everything. It's just how they do things. The single main reason why is because less than 5,000 of their core group exist on the entire planet; so they can't possibly control more than a few single points at any one time.

The logistical weakness to a degree is an outgrowth of the mental weakness, but is due to another factor as well. The cabal's combined police and military forces, will never amount to more than probably 3% of the global population, at the absolute most. They don't have anything close to the manpower required to have a real infantry presence everywhere at once.

This is the main reason why the public's perception of their threats is so important to them. Even after the camps are fully operational, it will be a logistical impossibility for more than 10% of the civilian population, at the absolute most, to occupy them at any one time. The cabal are not relying on the camps themselves, in order to achieve their objectives; they are relying purely on the public's fear, that even though very few people will in reality end up in the camps, a person has no way of knowing whether or not it is going to be themselves, as individuals, who it will end up happening to.

As a result of this, yes, towns and more remote areas are absolutely safer. This is partly because the residual police presence is smaller, but it is even more because, once the camps open, it is likely that curfews and active police patrols, will also begin to occur within urban areas. If you are not in the cities, you have significantly less chance of being caught by such a patrol. They won't happen as much within country towns, because given that the cabal have very limited manpower relative to the general population, as mentioned, they have to prioritise said manpower very carefully.

reply to post by DivineFem


I live over 150 miles to the nearest big city, then the small city of less then 34000 is another 16 miles, between my small community is a arid desert like conditions. If anyone did make it here most props here are highly armed, large city first, think how many millions and millions can be contained, then when we in our small communities hear of a assault for myself I have found a few temporary safe places.