Chatham Islands ?
I chose Tasmania, am here now.. I dont think anywhere is but i am hoping it's lesser and i am not the literal tip of the spear.
Albiet the poulation is older, white, conservative, religious so there is that problem.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Chatham Islands ?
I chose Tasmania, am here now.. I dont think anywhere is but i am hoping it's lesser and i am not the literal tip of the spear.
Albiet the poulation is older, white, conservative, religious so there is that problem.
Marquesas islands. They are very large, no dangers, lot of hideouts, lot of food resources, innaccessible for wheel vehicles, almost impossible to build large bases and to urbanise (small interest for China), they are isolated from other archipelagos, and the islands have not even 10k inhabitants in total (14 islands) so no one would get interest in nuking here.
Somewhere I won't be bothered, like Tristan da Cunha or the Pitcairn Islands
Just click your heels together three times, Dorothy. You'll find all the fascism you need right in your own backyard!
Nomadic life makes the most sense, just figure out your mode(s) of transportation.
Exactly where I am.
I moved to a backwater town in the middle of the desert for a fucking reason, worse comes to worst and I've got the benefit of being able to travel in literally any direction and be on res.
Iβve got a bug out zone extremely close to a bordering country thatβs self sufficient. Staying put unless things get wildly out of hand. We could probably house another 2 families if needed.
Can I call dibs?
Why should I leave? They're the ones who suck. I'm not giving any ground
if teleportation is allowed, i would just telefrag putin in moscow.
Somewhere obscure in the U.K. Iβd rather struggle to survive there rather than as cannon fodder for some rich scum.
Svalbard
Considering Russia's interest in the islands, that might not be all that great of a choice.
Think my home country Suriname is pretty safe. Almost no one knows it exists and there's plenty of places to ride out instability
If we take its actual definition; far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist, countries like Cuba for sure fits the bill. Now Cuba is authoritarian (and normal since they are in permanent and genuine threat from its neighbor) and probably that is not what is in your mind. Latin America is, as many as you pointed out, no ideal... but most countries there at least lacks of a strong government to enforce things (for better or worse) so, in a turbulent world, it is indeed a better bet. I think, for the time being, Spain has proven to be resilient to authoritarianism and even the voters of "extreme" parties are not that extreme themselves! In Latin America, Mexico is proven to have an amazing leadership (today, I consider it the best worldwide) so unlikely to change overnight. Colombia, Chile and Uruguay seems promising too.
See, when we analyze Latin America countries, one cannot think exclusively in terms of US or Europe political science. Our states may seem like weak forces when scrutinized from afar, however this is exactly the problem. Fascism has different ways of spreading through institutions and evangelical militias or drug cartels are literally everywhere. Sometimes, our states do not enforce fascism by law. They are weak on surface and extremely dangerous in their militias and affiliations with drug cartels. The contradiction is the rule around here. Mexico is not the heaven you make it sound. Do not trust a country's safety based on official governments, it is a starter error when analyzing Latin America politics