A short reply to the Prepper Anti-Defamation League complaints.
It seems that I have excited a lot of protest over my comment on this story: "What a crock of crap." The comment not only referred to the "lone survivor" mindset of the preppers described, but to reportage of the writer.
The outrage comes from those who self-identify as "preppers" and believe I am talking about all of them. I am not. As this post makes clear, I am not opposed to preparations: "How's your local supply preparedness? Wargaming the supply challenges of the armed citizenry in a breakdown scenario."
What I AM opposed to is the "hide in the woods until the first two big die-offs happen and then we can emerge and rule the roost" mentality. Back in the day, they used to be called "survivalists." Such people will be met by those survivors of community-based defense with the very real resentments of "where were YOU when we were fighting for our lives and liberty." Again, community based preps are the only ones likely to succeed long term. The resources available to small groups are just too few, and ignoring the plight of your friends and neighbors is, to my way of thinking, simply morally repugnant and a violation of the oath that I took. There is a very decided difference between the "hide in the woods" crowd (which, whether you like it or not, seems to make up most of the current "prepper" crowd, and the folks who are preparing for community based defense.
22 comments:
Good on ya, Mike, I knew what you meant all the time. What with your physical troubles, and everything else, it must be fun to listen to people whine about shit they have no business frothing about. You got the track, and the bystanders are pissing into the wind.The whole, "hide in the woods" routine always did strike me as less than wise.Out there, if you don't have a battalion of shooters with you, I believe you're going to get waxed by the first organization that shows up with any moxie.All they have to do, is wait you out. Better together, and working together, than splitting up and making ourselves weaker. A little deodorant, and a little maturity make for a lot of strength. Besides, away from the action, you won't know what's really going on.
Real preppers are those who have been preppers all their lives w/o knowing it. Those who think they are, or work to be/play one most likely do not have the life skills to make it past first contact. A real prepper is a person who puts value in raw material and never throws anything away that can be use for things/tasks other than the drawing board intended. Folks who can build/fix anything, know tactics, but keep a low profile are those who will make it no matter what. The crap you see on TV is just that, those folks will last about 30 seconds into first contact. Biker gangs (laughing) will not be an issue to those that have life skill sets, for when the rule of law is out the window or their family's are at stake, you will see the capability's of those folks, come to life real quick. They have already factored in large crowds and how to deal with that type of threat. Love the way, gang banging/war/total collapse/zombie hordes, TEOTWAWKI, fuels the economy, and keeps folks dreaming how they will be the Omega person! Life is a terminal illness, but allowing the stupid to proceed you either by their choice or yours, can be entertaining as well as rewarding.
I think if you rate prepping on a scale of 1-10, most of my neighbors and community are zeros. Serious preppers whom have spent lots of their hard earned money on food and supplies worry that the unprepared masses will be looking to take by force all their preps (from those according to their preparedness, to those according to their needs). Obama has put in place the confiscation orders in a state of emergency. Locals will demand that the "law" be enforced and food and supplies be turned in for the common good. Sorry Mike you are way off in your thinking on this one (maybe you're having a collectivist flashback?). Best strategy IMHO is a small group of dedicated people willing to spend time and money now to set up a defensible place (we call ours the Alamo) with what you think you will need for two to three years with no outside support. I see the lines at the food bank and the prolific use of EBT cards now, why should I be forced to support these people in a post-collapse situation, too?
What if your neighbors are needy greedy welfare type assholes? Glad you have good neighbors not everybody does. When TSHTF my crackhead neighbors can screw off, I will be in the woods on my own property ready to defend whats left. You might tone down your self righteous one size fits all philosophies, not every situation is the same as yours.
Signed,
Proud Survivalist
Lone wolves will die lonely but a tribe can live forever with GOD's blessing and hard work, don't ya know!
Without going into details, I've had recent experience to give pause to the idea of "hide in the woods" strategies, precisely for the reason you described. Storing food and potable water, providing security (and entertainment for the little ones)... these are not easily solved problems.
Food and water weigh a LOT, so transporting them or keeping them mobile, while still secure, is a logistical impossibility from a practical perspective. Which means you're stationary.
Permit me to quote from Ferfal, who survived the economic collapse (and social unrest) that occurred in Argentina:
...When it comes to food, cities suck in a crisis. It is usually the lack of food or the impossibility to acquire it that starts the rioting and looting when TSHTF.
When it comes to security things get even more complicated. Forget about shooting those that mean you harm from 300 yards away with your MBR. Leave that notion to armchair commandos and 12 year old kids that pretend to be grown ups on the internet.
Some facts:
1) Those that want to harm you/steal from you don’t come with a pirate flag waving over their heads.
2) Neither do they start shooting at you 200 yards away.
3) They won’t come riding loud bikes or dressed with their orange, convict just escaped from prison jump suits, so that you can identify them the better. Nor do they all wear chains around their necks and leather jackets. If I had a dollar for each time a person that got robbed told me “They looked like NORMAL people, dressed better than we are”, honestly, I would have enough money for a nice gun. There are exceptions, but don’t expect them to dress like in the movies.
4) A man with a wife and two or three kids can’t set up a watch. I don’t care if you are SEAL, SWAT or John Freaking Rambo, no 6th sense is going to tell you that there is a guy pointing a gun at your back when you are trying to fix the water pump that just broke, or carrying a big heavy bag of dried beans you bought that morning.
The best alarm system anyone can have in a farm are dogs. But dogs can get killed and poisoned. A friend of mine had all four dogs poisoned on his farm one night, they all died. After all these years I learned that even though the person that lives out in the country is safer when it comes to small time robberies, that same person is more exposed to extremely violent home robberies. Criminals know that they are isolated and their feeling of invulnerability is boosted. When they assault a country home or farm, they will usually stay there for hours or days torturing the owners. I heard it all: women and children getting raped, people tied to the beds and tortured with electricity, beatings, burned with acetylene torches. Big cities aren’t much safer for the survivalist that decides to stay in the city. He will have to face express kidnappings, robberies, and pretty much risking getting shot for what’s in his pockets or even his clothes.
So, where to go? The concrete jungle is dangerous and so is living away from it all, on your own. The solution is to stay away from the cities but in groups, either by living in a small town-community or sub division, or if you have friends or family that think as you do, form your own small community. Some may think that having neighbors within “shouting” distance means loosing your privacy and freedom, but it’s a price that you have to pay if you want to have someone to help you if you ever need it. To those that believe that they will never need help from anyone because they will always have their rifle at hand, checking the horizon with their scope every five minutes and a first aid kit on their back packs at all times…. Grow up."
From a guy who's been there, done that, as opposed to the armchair warriors. His collection of notes is at http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html
Thanks for all you do, Mike. I don't always agree with your opinions, but I always appreciate your efforts.
C.E.
A good book to have in your library as a guide is "A Failure of Civility-How to Defend and Protect You, your family, friends, neighborhood and America during a disaster or crisis" by Mike Garand and Jack Lawson. For those that must or are going to Bug In. Easy to read.
Don't worry about prepping. The Republicans are going to win the election. It will all be ok then. LOL
Shane
The "survivalist" type preppers get a lot of press, but they are nowhere near a majority. For every community-oriented prepper you see blogging or whatnot (don't expect to see them in the MSM...ever), there are easily a hundred or so members of their local community who also prep to a significant degree, storing food, fuel, and durable emergency needs, developing usable 'old school' skills for productivity without modern infrastructure, having the local expertise to keep some infrastructure running independently.
That said, I doubt that communities that prep will resent lone wolf (or small pack) survivalists half so much as they pity them. There are plenty of prepping communities which plan for taking in survivors from devastated areas. Of course that includes distinguishing legitimate refugees from cannibal bikers and whatnot, and defending themselves from the latter.
I have no ill-will against any survivalists who just don't find it practical to live in a prepped community right now. I think most of them are probably mistaken about the benefits of living in zombie-town right up till the outbreak, but I also think that the more survivalists there are escaping from zombie-town, the longer it takes for zombie-town to go critical and the more innocent bystanders have a chance of escaping.
The situation might be different for smaller prepped communities, they necessarily have less survival margin, will have to fight more cannibal bikers, and will probably really miss the survivalists who could have shared resources and expertise with them rather than wanking off in the woods.
So I think it is good to have a plan that includes getting together with the largest group of like-minded individuals within escape radius. Not that you absolutely have to follow that plan if it doesn't turn out to be your best bet in the event...but if it is your best bet then RSVP ahead so that someone there knows you from the cannibal bikers.
I've literally heard people, people who have prepped for decades, talk about using others as food and sex slaves when society collapses. They actually look forward to this. However, despite all their preparations and skills, I'm confident these types will be hunted down and eliminated shortly in a crisis as the vermin they are. Before I cut contact with these fine folks, I had asked about a long gun for long range use. The reply was what do you want that for? I said to reach out when needed. And the head satan worshipping mfer said what if me and 80 of my guys came and we wanted your stuff? I said there'd be a lot less of you by the time you got me.
So not everyone who "preps" is a decent constitution loving christian American. I expect evil to be unleashed in such a situation having to be dealt with, and it will do us well to review what has transpired in places that have suffered a collapse, such as Argentina and elsewhere. For example;
https://youtu.be/G8ZSa07NEgw
As Mike has said, the lone prepper can die just as easily as the one who never prepped at all. The key is getting some sort of local society going again and pooling resources and taking care of each other in the way messiah wants us to. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Also, be careful who your friend are, they may not be quite the people you thought they were.
If by "communit, you mean a sma group of neighbors whom I have vested beforehand whom I belive are at least somewhat trustworthy and have something to offer me in the event of SHTF, then yes, I believe in helping my community. If you mean the people of any city or town collectively, strangers albeit humans in need, then no, I will not make any effort to assist my community beyond what a chance encounter with a desperate person my justify. That is, if I come upon someone being attacked, I may intervene. The idea of working to organize and assist a bunch of strangers who have neither the courage or forethought to prepare to themselves is not realistic to me nor does it hold any great moral imperative. Those people who refuse to do anything to help protect themselves and their families deserve to perish. The think tomorrow will be just like yesterday and those people are part of the problem in this country - they take EVERYTHING for granted. No, I will protect my family, my friends and select neighbors. Every other person within range will be in jeopardy. Period.
If people think they can hide and survive they have already lost the battle in my opinion. People will need to unite and choose when and ware to fight. Alone, no one has a chance, together no aggressor has a prayer. The only problem is now days people are to self centered to even know how to join together for their own good!
Anon@920
You do know what occurred at the Alamo? Let me refresh your memory. They all died.
Best of luck.
Not every community can survive on its own. This being the result of fractured race make ups, or economic lack, or even philoshical differences. Certainly, where liberals rule, the individual is fucked.
Even if a small community possesses awesome cohesion, if it is near a city or two with populations over say, 100K, it will,be raided when it is learned that a working system of sustainment exists there.
Prepping is a philosophy that existed in my world before the name. We were survivalists, but not the nut job variety. I hesitate to use the word because of what the media has done to it, among other previously innocent labels and monikers. Yes, a good organization is necessary for collapse survival beyond a couple months. If it doesn't exist, bugging out to a better location /situation is a necessary pre-event planning item. Each situation is unique, and require individual planning, even for group members.
Suggest a reading of, A Failure of Civility, by Mike Garand and Jack Lawson. You can find it at afailureifcivility.com. It'll address your concerns.
even some preppers are looking for an oopertunity be 'butt hurt"
Dr.D
Some interesting disagreements ! Personally, I favor serious pre-SHTF old-fashioned "politicking" . Far better, IMO, to have a cadre of supporters with a diverse portfolio of skills and knowledge. Even better is if most - or at least some - of that cadre have standing in your community. Regardless of what happens to cause the problem being in a position of authority and control is far more beneficial than being a "lone wolf" because its gonna "take a village" (at the very least) to survive and thrive.
This is going to be hard for decent, upstanding, honorable, law and order types to accept, but the ONLY way you're going to survive is become what you most hate and despise.
A straight up cold-blooded killer/predator. A true sociopath.
That's your only alternative. Because that's the only types that are going to survive such an event, because they are mentally equipped to do so. A band of them, willing to ambush, slaughter and eat every person they encounter, is going have what it takes to survive. And since history is written by the winners, these folks won't be the least bit troubled worrying about their legacy.
You can plan all you want, prep all you can, be as friendly with neighbors as anyone could ever be, and none of that will protect you. Because the people you will be up against are just as determined - to EAT you. Literally.
Unless you're even meaner and more monstrous than that, you're going to dinner.
"This is going to be hard for decent, upstanding, honorable, law and order types to accept, but the ONLY way you're going to survive is become what you most hate and despise. A straight up cold-blooded killer/predator. A true sociopath."
You're both dead wrong and at the wrong website. You're looking for some NeoNazi pus page like Stormfront. Get thee hence. You don't belong on a Three Percenter page.
Vanderboegh
You are mostly just wrong on this one. Nations fall and mostly just leave only remote farmers.
Sure, it can be beneficial for groups of people to join together for common interests; How these groups form and what they think their interests are?, Change with the seasons.
Distance and poverty has historically provided protection to those unlucky enough to take refuge in it.
Civilization has always brought looters, pillagers and burners.
In the proper order and time.
Death to the French:
Those stupid villagers!
Hiding is of no avail!
I think that one of the problems of our feminized culture which rejects manhood and regards all thought of retributive justice is that there are a lot of people who've never been exposed to the idea (let alone reality) of just and lawful defensive force.
The fact is that defensive force, whether or not you want to call it violence, not only doesn't never solve anything, but is generally the most way that civilization makes real advances. Most criminals aren't committing crimes just for the evuls, they're doing it because they'd rather not go to the trouble of honest labor. Make crime dangerous enough, and most of them will stop even before you have to kill them.
This doesn't mean that war can be waged without ever hurting anyone. But it does mean that there is a difference between applications of lethal force which move you towards a defined objective and meaningless bloodshed. And a tactician who understands and respects that difference will enjoy a strategic advantage in efficacy and efficiency of force application over anyone who does not, regardless of how much they like (or hate) violence as an end in itself.
That's not to say that the good guys always win or anything foolish like that. There are a lot of other factors than the comparative efficiency with which various parties to a conflict apply the forces at their disposal. But exercising enough restraint to only use force when it actually helps you accomplish your objectives does significantly improve your chances of succeeding before you exhaust your available capabilities.
"There is no over-kill, there is only 'open fire!' and 'time to reload!'" may make an amusing slogan for comic-strip career sociopaths, but in reality using the minimum force necessary to achieve a desired result has significant benefits for those smart enough to do it.
Post a Comment