>usually the state wants to lower property values
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that most of the imported niggers will end up on welfare programs that'll pay them to exist in places where they normally couldn't. In fact, this makes raising property taxes even more desireable to the state, since it keeps their wealth down, thereby giving them more reasons to commit crimes.
The way I see it is this: A rich nigger is prone to commiting violent crimes because it is his nature. A poor nigger will
commit violent crimes because it is his nature, and because his environment is conductive to it. There are, naturally, exceptions to this rule, but such exceptions exist as statistical outliers.
>this could take a hundred years
I severely doubt it. The state we now find ourselves in is primarly the work of a very specific group of people. Said people are now extremely old, and will have to pass down their vast fortunes and reigns of control to their successors, of whom we know virtually nothing about. These newcomers, who we will likely see within the next decade, may not be able to handle the situation as well.
One specific example which comes to mind is one of the Rothschild daughters (forget her name) who goes gallavanting around dating random niggers on the street. This shows a clear lack of any ability by the elite (or, at the very least, the Rothschilds specifically) to control their spawn. I predict mass chaos in the wake of the death of the old guard.
I think this would be the best outcome, and an aim of peaceful balkanization would be the only instance where I support the doctrine of accelerationism.
>seperate the wheat from the chaff
I keep hearing this meme, but I see nothing to support it. The "wheat", for the definition the right ascribes to the word, is going to die on the front lines in the event of violent conflict. Meanwhile, the "chaff", for a definition of aforementioned ascribance, is by and large going to distance themselves from the conflict and focus on figuring out how to survive independantly of the state.
>We can't just decline forever, that's no way to live
In this, I wholly agree with you. However, I believe that hope for rebuilding will come from smaller communities and individuals rather than any great uprising.
>ties of concern for my family
I'm right there with you. I don't have any family of my own either and at this point, I probably never will
, but I'm concerned for my parents and sibilings, and their
families. I know that they'll do their best to make it through whatever comes next, but any potential for tragedy is too much.
Kind of? I know that there's a provision in the constitution that allows congress to throw out the electoral vote, and hold a second vote where each state gets only one ballot. That path, however, is no longer possible.
I think that the Texas meme is way overblown. They're no more extreme than other states, and I'd argue that they're less extreme in many measures. I believe that the states most likely to succeed are those that have strong identities outside of the US. This would include Hawaii, Alaska, the southern-most former Confederate States (yes, this includes Texas. I doubt they'll be the instigator though), Florida (may or may not involve themselves with former CSA states) and Vermont. Other states may instigate their own movements, but I severely doubt they will be split before anyone else.