Discussion Continued: "The Troubles" Of American Redoubt
Due to the length of the last piece, I’m starting a new entry to post discussion regarding it so it’ll be easier to read the comments and my reaction. Off the bat, thank you all for your readership and participation.
Let’s start with reader “Yakubian Ape,” who has a Substack of his own:
I spent a lot of time and travel extensively in this area (and the rest of Washington and Oregon, though that's neither here nor there). I think you're spot on about this, and it's not something a lot of people out there seem to get. There's a lot of out and open conservative support, a lot of political bluster, and a lot of unambiguous confidence that, should the rubber meet the road, they're going to win in any sort of conflict. It's admirable, in a way, but extremely short-sided [sic], and for as good at prepping as these people are (or claim to be), they still don't really seem to grasp the broader expanse of what's going on across the country besides "city bad". Which is true, but the further in the sticks you go, there's grinding poverty and crime that, while less frequent, yes, still rivals anything you might see in Portland and Seattle. Even in North Idaho, for as red as that place is, you go to any of the major towns - Couer d'Alene, Sandpoint, Wallace, etc. - they're all fairly liberal places. Sandpoint is less than an hour's drive from Ruby Ridge and, driving through there, you'd think you were in some small town on the Puget Sound the way the politics go. That's to say nothing of Boise, and especially Bozeman and Missoula.
Interesting. It goes to show you need to set foot in a place to really know what it’s like. Things are never what they seem from a distance. You can’t just visit the tourist attractions, either. Those places show only what they want you to see. There’s always an underlying reality to reckon with. I hope anyone who wants to move to American Redoubt territory has or will take the time to visit before making a consequential decision.
I echo what he said about the Right’s attitude towards cities. Some seem to have an irrational fear of them, as if only horrible things can happen to you once you step inside of one. But cities are just the natural outgrowth of people choosing to live near each other for safety and easy access to resources. Sure, once a city grows to a certain size, it’s hit the point of diminishing returns and living in said city would yield more cost than benefit, something which can be said of most American cities.
Yet conditions aren’t better in rural areas, either, as Yakubian Ape points out. If inequality in the cities is real, it’s even more pervasive in rural areas. You have a few wealthy folks who own large amounts of property, surrounded by those who own far less and work for small wages. Jobs aren’t plentiful in rural areas, a big reason people leave these areas to begin with. Degeneracy isn’t just a city thing, either. It exists in the country and no, it’s not just a matter of leftists bringing in the godlessness. Always be skeptical of anyone who says, “We don’t have that here.” It might be true in shades, but take a closer look and you’ll see country living has its dark side, as does city living.
If you haven’t already, purchase and read The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse by Fernando “FerFal” Aguirre. The author lived through Argentina’s early-21st century economic collapse and his book is a must for preppers. In the book, he explains that while you don’t want to live in a city during hard times, you don’t necessarily want to live way out in the middle of nowhere, either [bold mine]:
What do you think will happen when there’s 25% unemployment? Even more people will move into the cities looking for work, NOT the other way around!
We saw it here in Argentina and every other country that went through the same thing saw it as well. I do not recommend living in a large city though. Many of the city problems after the SHTF are real enough, and there are better alternatives.
I recommend basically what I later learned Mel Tappan recommended as well: Live in a small town or community. This community or subdivision should be close enough to a moderately-sized city with enough job opportunities, education and entertainment.
People need to have a social and cultural life. You need job opportunities in case you can no longer make a living doing what you do now. You need jobs for your wife and eventually for your children as well.
I’ve always thought this was excellent advice, all the more credible since he lived it, unlike us. Stay away from large cities and metropolitan areas and avoid living in urban areas in general, but don’t go way out yonder either, far removed from major population centers. By “moderately-sized city,” think Boise, Idaho or Spokane, Washington if you wish to reside in American Redoubt. Examples elsewhere include Salt Lake City, Utah and Des Moines, Iowa.
More from Yakubian Ape:
Getting to know people in those places, though, I've heard from anyone with any sense and is more careful about who they're truly open and honest with. Like I said, there's a lot of posturing and peacocking in these places to see who can fly the biggest "let's go brandon" flag or scream "FJB" the loudest, but the more erudite and intellectual people - people I'd say are more intellectually conservative than temperamentally, which, the more time I spent out there, the more time I see clearly illustrated - know that these communities and towns are under a microscope, and there's a pretty pervasive caution of federal agents. It makes it hard to actually get to know anyone that, in my opinion, is worth knowing, because they're very guarded about what they say, which tells me everything I need to know about just how politically tumultuous the situation already is in these places, despite how red hot republican they appear on the surface.
Hmm. It doesn’t sound like fertile ground for establishing community, does it? I’m not saying it can’t be done - I’m sure there’s good people out there - but it also seems the atmosphere is thick with fear, loathing, and suspicion. It also confirms my own suspicions that this area of the country is indeed a conflict zone and the combination of geography, relative isolation, and the lack of trust among neighbors makes it a uniquely combustible one at that.
Next, we go to reader “Reckoning,” coming to us from the Great White North:
I think that someone looking to move has to understand their reasons for doing so and what they realistically expect. Furthermore, even if you are politically in tune with the locals, that doesn’t mean they will welcome you with open arms, especially in times of stress.
This conforms with the literature I cited in the essay. The people moving to Idaho and Montana are California’s Republicans and are more right-wing than even native residents. Yet the political solidification comes at the price of raising the cost of living. As I said, for now and into the near future, people will prefer a lower cost of living over a few extra Republican votes in their town. You don’t vote every day, anyway.
It’ll likely take a major crisis (i.e., civil war) for the influx of outsider Republicans to pay off. Even then, as Reckoning suggests, people who cannot get along in the good times won’t get along in the bad times. Especially since the civil war that’s likely to occur will be low-level and within the context of an overall intact union, the idea everyone puts their personal squabbles aside for the greater good is unlikely. If anything, these personal squabbles are likely to intensify, even as leftists and the Regime encroach on their territory.
More from Reckoning:
I recall during Covid lockdowns in Ontario some towns in northern Ontario sent out police to stop urbanites from accessing their cottages, with questionable legality. In one incident locals followed a car from Toronto to a cottage and attacked the homeowners. And the more rural Atlantic provinces in Canada simply cut themselves off from travel, although they still accepted our money.
If someone wants to integrate into the local community and realistically expects to find it somewhat more congenial, that seems to be a realistic expectation. However, expecting a civil conflict AND expecting a better outcome in such a conflict seems far fetched.
Once more, this is all happening at a time when a civil war hasn’t occurred. Ideology is actually a very weak form of solidarity, because the root word is “idea.” One’s ideas aren’t fixed and your opinion is only worth as much as that of someone else. I’d take this as a warning to anyone who thinks having the same political views are someone else is going to serve as strong ties. Yes, it’s happened in other places - think Colombia during La Violencia and the Spanish Civil War - but my gut tells me in places like the U.S. and Canada, your political views count for less. We’re just too individualist and libertarian for that.
Last bit from Reckoning:
Despite overwhelming federal power in the US, states still have considerable authority over matters such as land use. I recently came across Robert Bryce’s Substack, in which he talks about efforts to force giant wind farms on rural America. There may also be better family laws in some jurisdictions and protections in raising your children (for example, what if your autistic teen declares themselves trans?)
Issues like whether kids should be allowed to switch genders will absolutely become flashpoints in places like American Redoubt and elsewhere. The fact that states like Idaho and Montana are, at least on paper, right-wing holdouts makes them the perfect places for the Regime to make an example of.
If it can happen in American Redoubt, it can happen anywhere.
UPDATE #1: Another remark from Reckoning:
4. The Western Canadian provinces at least have significant populations (maybe 10-15% of the national population and disproportionate wealth). In contrast, the US mountain states are tiny in the IS context and they basically don’t count. So I think that it is more likely that Texas or the South offer serious resistance to the national government, as they are starting to do so to a modest extent.
Reckoning talked about the resistance Canadian protesters put up during 2022 against their national government. He does make a good point in that possessing critical mass in population and wealth are important ingredients in putting up resistance against the state. The territory of American Redoubt, if it were to be lost, wouldn’t probably impact the residents more and the overall union less.
It’s precisely for this reason the fight over this land would be entirely a matter of politics and legitimacy for the federal government, as well why this would be a low-intensity conflict. The capacity for resistance are quite limited, even with all the guns, and there’s just no reason for the feds to commit such a large amount of resources to secure this region. Similarly, if the United Kingdom lost Northern Ireland, it wouldn’t be any worse for the physical wear in the long term, and neither would’ve Russia been had they lost Chechnya. But the central government’s legitimacy would absolutely take a hit and, thereby, lose power in the process. Regimes will tolerate all sorts of things, but they’ll never tolerate even the perception of losing.
It’s absolutely true that serious resistance by a state like Texas or a region like the South would pose a challenge to Washington that American Redoubt could only dream of. However, for reasons I’m not going to get into, I find it an unlikely scenario.
For the people of American Redoubt, though, any conflict will constitute a fight for their lives.
UPDATE #2: FOX News reports on the exodus from neighboring Blue states for Idaho and again, the people moving aren’t who you think they are:
Thousands of conservative-leaning Washington residents fled the deep blue state for neigboring Idaho, voter data published by the Gem State shows.
Data published by the Idaho Secretary of State’s office shows that out of the nearly 119,000 people who recently moved to the state, 65% registered as Republicans, compared to just 12% registering as Democrats.
The data, which was reviewed by Fox News Digital, show that out of the roughly 20,000 Americans who moved from Washington state to Idaho, 62% registered as Republicans, compared to 12% as Democrats, 24% as unaffiliated and 2% as "other." The percentage of registered Republicans originally from Washington who recently moved to Idaho is actually higher than the state’s overall percentage of registered Republicans, which sits at about 58%.
Of course, none of this ensures domestic tranquility, but it does show Idaho in particular is becoming deep-red bastion, a state which could prove to be a thorn in the side of the Regime.
Whether it’s Washington, California, or Oregon, the overwhelming majority of new arrivals in Idaho are Republicans:
Out of the nearly 40,000 people who left California for Idaho, a whopping 75% registered as Republicans, the data reviewed by Fox News Digital show. Only 10% of the California pool registered as Democrats, 14% as unaffiliated and 2% as “other.”
And:
The voter data out of Idaho also found the majority of Americans who moved from Oregon to the Gem State registered as Republicans. Just over 9,000 Oregonians moved to Idaho in recent years, 65% of whom registered as Republicans, 14% as Democrats and 19% as unaffiliated.
Turning the Mountain states into a right-wing bastion does have trade-offs. While neither California, Oregon, nor Washington were ever going to go anything but blue at least for another generation, the real problem emerges at the local level. The more right-wing voters depart these states, the more likely these states will achieve single-party rule all the way down to the community level.
It’s a lot to ask people who clearly feel like they’re in enemy territory to stay and fight until the bitter end. But the lack of any kind of political opposition ultimately leads to authoritarianism by default. Single-party states rule with the presumption everyone’s going to support them anyway, so even if their own party members dissent, it’s largely ineffective, since there’s no negative incentive for the party to change course. The same way single-party statehood is turning all of California into the image of Los Angeles in San Francisco, Portland will progressively become the norm in Oregon and Seattle in Washington if there’s no resistance at the local level.
You might wonder, why care? These people voted for it! Sure, but Idaho possesses only four electoral votes in the presidential election. California alone possesses 54, Oregon eight, and Washington 12. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming altogether have 11. This means turning American Redoubt territory into a right-wing bastion might make practical sense, but it doesn’t make political sense. The red trio were safe Republican states long before the recent influx, so while it may shore up local elections, it doesn’t change the overall political landscape. In some ways, their blue counterparts have more to gain from the exodus.
Again, California, Oregon, and Washington will remain Regime-aligned states for the foreseeable future. But as these states have greater clout on the national stage, the escape to the mountains may only make it more likely the Regime will focus on the territory of American Redoubt as troubled land and attempt to exert greater control of the region.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!