(NaturalNews) There is good reason for legitimate optimism right now, even in the face of an approaching financial collapse and the rise of the new American police state. It sounds contradictory, but there is a silver lining to all this. There's a catch, however: The silver lining only applies to those who learn how to get out of the way of the "social tsunami" that will be unleashed. I'll explain that in more detail later in this article.
To explain that, we first have to address the issue of FEMA camps. Publicly described as "refugee camps," FEMA camps have a reputation among the "awakened" community as being concentration camps. There is evidence that FEMA camps are stockpiling huge numbers of cadaver incineration containers (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=C67234C7049D2AB2F3D897B805FEFEC2). The recent purchase of 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition by the DHS also indicates a massive amount of firepower is about to be directed at the American population. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036847_ammo_purchases_government_stockpi...)
But let's analyze this rationally, and let's look at both "best case" and "worst case" scenarios for these FEMA camps.
BEST CASE scenario: FEMA camps are merely "refugee camps" set up to help the masses of refugees who will flee the cities in the midst of a global economic collapse. The FEMA camps will provide basic supplies such as food, water, shelter, electricity, basic medical care and so on. The camps will also offer security to the people during the crisis, and then after the crisis people will be free to leave. FEMA saves a bunch of lives and the government is the hero.
WORST CASE scenario: The FEMA camps are actually concentration camps set up with human incinerators (large, walk-in ovens) to process tens of millions of inner-city dwellers who the globalists see as having no value whatsoever and therefore need to be eliminated at the first opportunity. The camps will be use to stage citizens who are rounded up under the pretext of being "saved" but are actually sent either to slave labor camps or incinerators after being tagged as "infected" with a fictional infectious disease propagandized by the CDC. The "American holocaust" will take place under the name of FEMA.
Keep in mind as you read all this that the United States of America already has a long and well-documented history of running internment camps and rounding up innocent people, kidnapping them, stuffing them into these camp prisons, and not letting them out for years. This is the factual story of exactly what happened in World War II with the Japanese Internment Camps located all across the country. I recently wrote about it in this article:
Remember, by the way, that FEMA camps could also potentially function somewhere in between the best case and worst case scenarios. They don't have to be wholly one or the other.
In the best case scenario (or anything close to it), there's little to worry about. Nobody's going to be harmed if FEMA merely serves its official function of helping refugees deal with disaster. So let's look more in the direction of the worst case scenario: What is the worst that FEMA can do?
To answer this question, we have to ask some basic questions:
1) How many FEMA centers exist across the country?
2) How many people can they hold and / or house at any one time?
3) How many people can they "process" through incinerators if that were indeed their goal? (Worst case scenario, remember?)
The answer to the first question is relatively straightforward. Based on maps available online, there appear to be roughly somewhere between 175 and 200 FEMA camps across the USA. Let's take the 200 as our working number as we explore these questions.
How many people can each camp hold? While every camp obviously has different facilities and capacities, what we're looking for here is the average capacity.
This is a bit of a wild guess, but I'm going to propose that the average capacity of a FEMA camp is about 25,000 people. This number is probably ridiculously high, as housing that many people would require a huge structure approaching the size of a sports stadium. My honest guess is that most camps can handle fewer than 5,000 people while only a few larger camps are built for anything approaching 100,000 people. But we'll go with 25,000 each for illustration purposes.
If accurate, this means FEMA camps can hold, at maximum, 200 x 25,000 people, which is 5 million people. That's a nationwide total.
But New York City, all by itself, has 8 million people. Los Angeles has another 3.8 million, and Chicago has 2.7 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_popula...).
When you start adding up the populations of the largest cities, it becomes very clear that FEMA camps can't hold anywhere near the numbers they would need to hold in order to handle the mass of refugees fleeing the cities. Remember, the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people. If FEMA camps can hold 5 million people in total, that's only 1.7% of the total population.
Of course, that calculation is only based on how many people FEMA camps can hold. A darker question is: How many people can FEMA camps process? (Incinerate.)
FEMA camp incinerators, you say? Sounds like some wild conspiracy theory.
That's what I thought, too, until I saw this patent from the U.S. patent office. It's patent number 5425163. And here's the description of the patent:
A multi-functional cremation container for a cadaver is provided. A rectangular container is enclosed on five sides by four container side panels and a bottom panel. The sixth side is an upwardly facing open top for providing access to the internal volume within the container. The side panels terminate at the open top in a first annular horizontal peripheral groove and a downturned external flange having a downfacing annular edge. Each side is sloped so as to allow multiple cremation containers to be nestled for compact storage and easy transportation. A rectangular cover has a horizontal top panel with four peripheral, downwardly extending cover side panels. The cover side panels fit over the container flange for closing the container, and include formed therein a plurality of reliefs for carrying the casket...
The image of this "cremation container" patent is shown here:
These exact "cremation containers" aren't just real, they're stacked inside FEMA camps in massive quantities. The following picture is taken from the 2:30 mark of this Jesse Ventura video:
As you can see from the video, these human cadaver incineration containers are being produced and stored in massive quantities, then held at FEMA camps. There can be only one purpose for such containers: The incineration of a massive numbers of Americans.
The CDC, of course, would explain all this as merely a "precautionary measure" to deal with the casualties of a runaway infection with a high fatality rate. Most of the sheeple don't believe mass incineration containers really exist... until you tell them the CDC supports the plan as a way to dispose of infected bodies in a large pandemic outbreak. And then, suddenly, a typical sheeple person will say, "Oh, then, it must be okay."
But back to the point at hand, it is absolutely clear that the U.S. government is preparing to incinerate huge numbers of human bodies at FEMA camps. For what reason? Believe what you wish.
Hold on a second, you say. This is nuts. The American people wouldn't stand by idly and allow the government to incinerate citizens by the millions.
Oh really? And on what evidence do you base such a conclusion? The German citizens tolerated it in World War II, when Jews were being rounded up and incinerated by the millions, right in the German citizens' own back yard. Today, in the USA, the sheeple have become so "sissified", apathetic and mentally malleable that no one would stop the government's mass incineration operations, even if such activities became widely known. "Anything to stop terrorism!" the sheeple would scream as they bow down and lick the boots of tyrants.
If there's anything that's perfectly clear about American culture over the last couple of decades, it's that people will go along with anything -- even crazy things -- as long as the White House explains it away. Hey, let's bail out the rich banksters with trillions of dollars in taxpayer money while nobody goes to jail! Or, let's spend billions of dollars to move U.S. auto industry jobs to China! Or how about this one: Let's just start arresting veterans and throwing them in psychiatric hospitals by the hundreds, claiming they have "mental disorders" if they speak out against the status quo (http://www.naturalnews.com/036923_Brandon_Raub_thought_crimes_psych...).
So where's the good news in all this, you ask? There is a limit to how many human beings they can process. So even if you believe the FEMA camp infrastructure is engineered and intended to "process" large numbers of American citizens, the limited resources controlled by the federal government means that, by definition, most of the population will escape such evil aims.
That's the good news in all this. Even if FEMA camps are invoked in their worst case scenario status, and even if the government becomes overrun with such evil that it pursues a new human holocaust and starts incinerating citizens by the millions, there is a practical limit to how many people they can round up and process.
All such operations -- if they even take place at all -- will be focused entirely on high population density cities where the minimum number of troops can effectively round up the maximum number of citizens with the least amount of resistance.
Keep in mind, by the way, that even the troops won't be told the full story here. They'll be told a big lie such as "a terrible infectious disease has been released by a terrorist and we have to round people up for their own protection." So the troops won't resist the orders, as they'll be operating under the belief that they are saving people. Only a very small inner circle of commanders and loyal troops will know the rest of the story of where those people are headed (and why so many magically disappear).
Even then, there simply aren't enough troops to conduct these "sweep up" operations everywhere. The largest five cities will, all by themselves, use up most of the national resources of troops, humvees, armored personnel carriers, and so on. No one has ever attempted to militarily control the city of Los Angeles, but the task will be enormously complex and extremely messy (if not impossible). Once the roadblocks are put in place around the city, the region will almost certainly become a free-for-all of runaway gang violence, accented with the occasional arrival of guns-blazing national guard troops who shoot anything that doesn't immediately surrender.
Where's the good news in all this again?
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, roughly 95% of the USA is rural open space. This is even true in California, where 94% of the population lives in just 5% of the land space of the state. (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/07/01/census-burea...)
Think about this for a minute. Ninety-four percent of the population lives in just 5% of the space!
So where do you think the FEMA round-up operations are going to be focused? They're going to be focused on the 5% of the geographic space where the population is concentrated. The cities, namely.
That means 95% of the American landscape will remain a FREEDOM ZONE where there simply aren't enough troops to cover the geography. Yes, troops can and will cover all the highways, bridges, interstates and major roadways. But there are endless back roads, pathways, farms and ranches off the beaten path that will simply be ignored.
Even more, National Guard troops aren't going to want to mess with heavily armed rural populations to begin with. Do you think a bunch of troops want to roll through the mountains of Idaho in the middle of a civil war, with armed rebels hiding behind every tree and rock? Not a chance. They're going to focus their efforts on the disarmed cities where civilians are completely helpless to defend themselves. Turn off the water supply to Los Angeles, and the entire city surrenders in 72 hours.
Chicago also comes to mind as a likely target for rounding people up. Think about it: 2.7 million people, mostly disarmed, ready for the taking. It's "easy pickins" for a holocaust if, indeed, holocaust is the goal.
New York is an easy target for the holocaust, too, with 8.2 million people who are mostly disarmed. Los Angeles provides 3.8 million people to fill the incinerators, although battles with the inner city gangs will be hard-fought.
Houston is another story altogether. With a population of 2.1 million people, there are probably at least half a million armed citizens in Houston. Houstonites are not going to just quietly get stuffed into transport trucks and hauled off to the incinerators. There are a lot of African-American brothers in Houston who know their history -- and they know not to trust the government when someone says, "Just hop onto this transport boat and everything will be fine." The last time that line was offered to black folks, it didn't turn out to be honest advertising.
In fact, I have to say for the record that black folks are far sharper about not trusting the government than white folks. A typical middle-class suburban white family is totally clueless about reality, having never seen real hardship. Their kids are hooked on Ritalin, their neighborhood has no real violent crime, and they easily find decent-paying jobs because they look clean-cut and trustworthy. White folks are often in favor of gun restrictions because they live under the delusion that the government will always show up and save them if they need to dial 911 for any reason.
The inner cities, on the other hand, are places where reality hits the pavement night after night. The people who live there are street-wise and not so gullible. Whether they are black, Latino, Chinese or Korean, they're survivors who know to watch their backs and avoid predators. That's a skill relatively few well-to-do white folks have mastered. I'm not trying to be racist against whites here, by the way; I'm just laying out the facts of cultural reality: A hard life makes you a survivor. An easy, cushy life in a protected, artificial suburban upbringing makes you soft, regardless of your race. When a typical rich suburban kid has a problem in life, he's sent to counseling to "talk it out." When a typical inner city kid (of any race) has a problem, he might have to literally dodge bullets. Which one of these two do you think has a better chance of surviving a societal collapse?
For the record, by the way, I was brought up "soft" in a cushy suburban neighborhood, complete with Cub Scouts, my own bicycle newspaper route and four years on the high school track team. I never knew that my protected world wasn't the real world. The only clue I really had was at the divisional track meets where the inner city "brothers" tore up the track, easily beating all us "white boyz" in virtually every running event, seemingly without even trying.
We had several black athletes on our own team, some of whom I got to know quite well, and they were almost universally the strongest runners. Our coach was a smart and fair man, and he always handed the events to the most deserving, regardless of their skin color. That's the only thing that kept our team in the running, as it was often our fastest "brother" who took on the final leg of the 1600-meter relay, making up all the ground lost by us white guys and somehow pulling out a narrow victory by clocking a 47.5-second quarter mile -- an amazing feat for a high school runner.
The point in all this is that when it comes to surviving during hard times, it seems obvious to me that those who were brought up under "hard" circumstances have a survival advantage during a collapse.
Of course, survival skills can be learned and mastered by anybody. With a few hundred hours of training, almost anyone can learn to watch their back, size up potential threats to their safety, become competent in basic skills of evasion and personal defense, and even master what is called "the great American martial art" -- pistol fighting.
The number of people who actually pursue these skills, however, is tiny. Less than one percent of the population. Most people place a far higher priority on television and shopping than on self defense and survival. Needless to say, proudly owning a fancy new pair of designer jeans doesn't count for much in a collapse.
The upshot of all this -- and yes, the silver lining -- is that roughly 95% of America's land space will remain virtually untouched by destructive forces even in a worst-case scenario. It only makes sense that getting yourself into this zone well ahead of time is a key strategy for avoiding whatever malicious agenda might be pursued by a government gone bad.
The cities are the death traps of modern society. Whether you're talking about a pandemic, a nuclear strike by an enemy nation, a FEMA-led extermination effort or a "grid down" power collapse, cities are quite obviously death traps. Getting you and your family out of the city is your ticket to freedom and safety.
How do you do that? First, take a look at this list of U.S. cities with populations greater than 100,000:
If you live in any of those cities, you're probably living in danger.
There are nine U.S. cities with populations greater than one million: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and Dallas.
All nine of those U.S. cities are death traps just waiting to be triggered. But even on that list, some are far more dangerous than others. Cities like San Antonio and Dallas, for example, have multiple escape routes in all directions. But cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York are strictly limited by geography and are therefore far deadlier in a crisis. New York City, in particular, resides within Manhattan Island which is connected to the rest of the area by just 16 bridges. This means the military can simply throw down 16 armed, barricaded checkpoints and essentially quarantine the entire city. Patrolling the rivers and harbors is a simple task, so don't think you can escape by boat, either.
This is why I put New York City at the top of my list of the most dangerous places to live. In fact, the entire East Coast is rife with high-density population areas. To really get some open space, you have to head westward, into the Midwest or even go west of the Rockies. There's a lot of rugged open space, for example, in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and even Eastern Washington / Oregon have lots of opportunities to get away from the cities. Texas is a huge rural area dotted by a few high-density cities that take up a very small percentage of the actual geographic area of the state.
So the strategy -- and the good news -- is simple and straightforward: Get your butt out of the high-density cities and into the "freedom zones" of the rural areas.
The best book on this subject is also one that's been around for more than a decade: Strategic Relocation by Joel Skousen.
I recommend you buy this through the InfoWars.com store:
On that page, you'll also find a video interview with the author. I first read this book over ten years ago, and it has guided my relocation decisions ever since.
We may soon even carry this book in our own store, the upcoming "NaturalNews Store," which is launching in approximately six weeks: http://store.naturalnews.com
According to Skousen, Austin Texas is not necessarily the best place in the country. It's too near high-population cities such as San Antonio, Houston and Dallas. There are some nuclear plants in Texas that might also be troublesome.
But I don't actually live in the city of Austin, of course. I live in an outlying area many miles from the city. Most importantly, I chose Texas because of the Texas culture, which turns out to be a perfect fit for my own beliefs of rugged individualism, personal responsibility and Constitutional liberties.
Texas is also the only state with its own independent power grid. Texas produces an excess of energy, food and technology. Of all the states in the nation, Texas is probably the most well-suited to be self-sufficient.
On top of that, Texas is a culture that strongly encourages private firearms ownership, which I believe to be crucial for survival. I simply will not live in a city or state that places ridiculous restrictions on firearms ownership. In Texas, much of the population is armed, and guns are ubiquitous. It's not a problem, by the way. Violent crime is relatively rare in Texas (compared to disarmed death zones like Chicago) because all the potential "bad guys" still have enough brain cells functioning to know that the Texas population is armed to the teeth and willing to shoot back.
Just as importantly, Texas is also an agricultural hub for the nation, so engaging in activities like buying large drums of chicken feed or fertilizer is a common practice. If you want to store 500 gallons of diesel fuel on your farm, that won't raise any eyebrows, either. In rural Texas, you can raise backyard chickens, goats and even rabbits. Land is relatively affordable, and rich soils are available in the right areas.
Texas is famous for producing blueberries, pecans and other superfoods!
Plus, Texas folks are by and large polite people. They still have that Southern hospitality attitude, and they are genuinely helpful folks who band together in any emergency and work to protect their local communities.
Texas is full of Sheriffs and deputies who still believe in the Bill of Rights. Many are quite outspoken about the coming collapse, and they are intent upon protecting their communities from FEMA and the United Nations. (http://www.infowars.com/texas-judge-warns-obama-re-election-could-l...)
Texas isn't perfect, of course. The cities will be hell holes in a collapse, but the people of Texas are resilient, rugged, innovative and determined. And those are the kind of people I want to be living among when the fit hits the shan, so to speak.
What you decide to do depends on your perspective of what's important. If you're into fashion, shopping malls and living in a concrete jungle with zero sustainability, a city is a great choice. But if you're into living off the land, away from the urban death traps and practicing permaculture or self-reliance, simply shift your priorities so that you get out of the city and into the country.
Remember: 95% of America's land space is wide open, rural space. These spaces are very likely to be left alone in almost any crisis. So pick your spot, buy some land, drill a well and start your garden. Learn the skills you need to survive -- self-defense, plant propagation, raising chickens, and so on -- and you'll be relatively well off when the collapse comes.
That's the good news I promised in all this: If you get out of the city and get prepared, your odds of surviving even a worst-case collapse and FEMA-style round-up attempt are very, very high. It is primarily the clueless, defenseless masses who will find themselves victims of whatever agenda or circumstance unfolds.
So, as promised, here are the 10 reasons for legitimate optimism in the face of impending financial collapse:
#1) 95% of America's land space is rural, "wide open" space.
#2) Government forces are limited and can only cover high-density population areas -- the cities.
#3) Right now, you still have time and opportunity to leave the city and move to the countryside.
#4) In many areas of the country, it is perfectly legal for you to raise chickens, raise crops and own firearms for your protection.
#5) Rural culture teaches a survival mindset. Farmers are very resourceful and innovative.
#6) You are not limited to how you were raised. You can teach yourself the skills you need to live in a rural setting. (I did!)
#7) Getting out of the city also gives you buffer space against a pandemic outbreak or biological attack.
#8) FEMA round-up attempts -- if they even occur -- will be very unlikely to ensnare prepared "country folks" who are willing to defend their lives, communities and property.
#9) FEMA camps do not have the capacity or resources to "process" everyone. They are limited in their scope, even if they pursue a holocaust type of agenda.
#10) Most of all: Survivors can help REBUILD a better society after the collapse -- a society that respects liberty, justice, personal responsibility and the order of law. The "next society" which emerges after the collapse will be an opportunity to imprison the banksters, take back the money supply, throw the bums out of office in Washington, shatter the government's devastating monopoly over (failed) public education, end the FDA / pharma monopoly over fascist medicine, and unleash the true entrepreneurial leadership of America once again.
And isn't that good news, after all? Think of the "collapse" as a detox. A cleansing. A reboot to a better operating system. While the current system of runaway debt spending will, without question, come to an end, isn't that actually a good thing if we can create something better on the other side and restore freedom and liberty for America?