"I urge readers to use less than lethal means when safe and practicable, but at times there is not a satisfactory substitute for well-aimed lead going down range at high velocity."
-- James Rawles, SurvivalBlog
With oil and food prices reaching all-time highs and food riots breaking out in the global south, a bit of good old-fashioned end-is-nighism is creeping into our popular culture.
It hit me when I read a report in The New York Sun -- the one I blogged about -- making the startling claim that food rationing has begun in places like New York City and Silicon Valley.
The article itself, weakly sourced and tentative, didn't really worry me. What did was the casual way the reporter leaned on a fellow by the name of James Rawles, who runs a blog called SurvivalBlog, as an authority. A survivalist? You mean the guys who have been pining for "societal collapse" since the 1970s and stocking up on firearms (and Chuck Norris DVDs) ever since?
As we head into undeniably shaky economic and ecological times, I find the survivalist line of thinking crudely individualistic and repugnant -- the sort thing that actually could sink a fragile society.
I went poking around SurvivalBlog, expecting to be freaked out; I wasn't disappointed. A student posts about "preparedness" for college life (sample advice: stash food and "bugout gear" under your bed; live off campus, if possible, so you can store guns). Blog editor Rawles adds this choice nugget:
I guess that things have changed since I was in college in the early 1980s. There was a "no guns on campus" policy, but it was largely ignored. My dorm room often resembled Peshawar workshop. It was where my shooting buddies would congregate for gun cleaning and for gun assembly. I lost count of the number of M1911s and AR-15s that we parted together in that room. We even had a miniature Unimat lathe in the dorm room for one semester. (It was a Unimat DB200, if I remember correctly.)
Yikes. I have no idea what all that lingo means -- something about the size and power of guns?
At another point, Rawles lays out his vision for post-meltdown life:
Rugged individualism is all well and good, but it takes more than one man to defend a retreat. Effective retreat defense necessitates having at least two families to provide 24/7 perimeter security. But of course every individual added means having another mouth to feed. Absent having an unlimited budget and an infinite larder, this necessitates striking a balance when deciding the size of a retreat group.
What a nightmare vision -- two-family units prowling about "defending a retreat" around the clock, all the while suspiciously eying each other, wondering if the other mouths to feed are worth the trouble.
Rawles says some stuff that makes sense -- on a societal level.
Food storage is one of the key preparations that I recommend. Even if you have a fantastic self-sufficient garden and pasture ground, you must always have food storage that you can fall back on in the event that your crops fail due to drought, disease, or infestation.
I, too, support diverse and even redundant food systems -- I'd like to see more of everything from neighborhood gardens to small farms, mid-sized farms, and national grain stocks. I think the way nations, including the U.S., have sold off grain stores is insane. But rather than pack my house with years' worth of food, I'd rather participate in a movement to rebuild robust local and regional food-production networks -- ones that are linked globally to avoid famine when scarcity breaks out somewhere.
That, to me, represents true survivalism; angry men packing guns and defending canned-food stashes from the hungry strikes me as the end of civilization.
Getting to know the neighborhood — through its trash
Food safety: How local can you go?
Comments View as Flat
banditrn Posted 6:38 am
23 Apr 2008
You're Kidding, Right?!
I wonder if you've been watching too many movies - or have 'grasshopper' tendencies?
I consider myself a 'survivalist', and am part of a larger network of good folks who have the same beliefs as I.
I believe in being prepared for any situation as much as I can be. I feel that I need to care for myself and those who depend on me - rather than waiting around for someone else to come along and do it for me.
I enjoy learning how to 'do' things for myself - now, so that if those skills are ever needed, I will already have them. I can garden, have family that know how to hunt and process meat, know how to sew, make butter, and so forth.
Last winter when we had a major ice storm, we were able to stay in our own home with alternate heat sources, cook, have light to see by - while many of our neighbors went to the local shelter.
People like myself are all around you, but you don't know it, because you have this picture of 'angry men guarding canned goods'. I'm female, by the way.
But let me add this - don't expect to come to my house to take long term shelter if things go bad. I don't do all this for you and all those who refuse to prepare themselves. I do it for those I love. Everyone else needs to do the same - if you chose not to, that's not my problem.
Permalink
kuroneko Posted 6:46 am
23 Apr 2008
where should I start?
You'll need 1 year supply of grains and staples while you wait for your garden to harvest if you're planting grains, veggies, etc.
Ever hear of Mother Earth magazine? Perfect blend of survivalist + hippy. You may want to familiarize yourself. Current article is all about Preparedness.
Btw: kudos to banditrn above. Couldn't agree more.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:44 am
23 Apr 2008
Yikes.
grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:49 am
23 Apr 2008
Don't do that, Tom,
we need you! Let none of us flinch in the face of evil.
One of the ironies in this persistence of survivalism -- and perhaps a surge in it -- is that it is founded on an extreme, misguided application of certain attitudes and behaviors which have historically been praised as heroic and virtuous.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:03 am
23 Apr 2008
Community
Is going to be your best survival resource. Anybody who thinks that they are going to go at it alone when there are organized communities of hundreds or thousands out there is nuts.
If you don't already have a strong connection to your local community it might be time to get one. In tough times being a lone wolf might not be a healthy option. Volunteer in your new community a lot. Never leave until the last dish is washed and the last chair is stacked. Build some equity.
To paraphrase Red Green; If they can't find you handsome they better find you handy.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
HumdrumPG Posted 8:05 am
23 Apr 2008
Survivalism
There's a difference between being self-reliant and selfish. As a society and as individuals, we could all benefit from a good dose of self-reliance, in order to create greater sustainability. However, the survivalist mindset (to the extent one can speak about it collectively) seems to be "my self-reliance will serve me and my loved ones alone when the shit hits the fan." Though I do hope to be able to provide for myself were I ever presented with such a situation, I think a more productive mindset would be to work to effectuate positive change in the here and now, so that we can prevent a "shit hits the fan situation."
Survivalists would turn their backs on the very society which provided them with the means and technology to create their illusory cocoon.
Moreover, the survivalist goal is a whack-a-mole attempt to control every possible contingency. I don't doubt many survivalist types would survive longer than I would if the shit hits the fan. But the fact is they will likely die soon enough, for lack of preparation in some key area or another. The energy exerted in pursuit of these selfish ends, then, would be put to much better use developing a truly sustainable society.
I also disagree that Mother Earth News has anything to do with survivalism, other than what a survivalist might read into it. The magazine seems to me much more focused on making positive changes for the environment, and to the current lifestyle of its readers, rather than preparing for some post-apocalyptic/bad-Kevin-Costner-movie world.
Permalink
kmp Posted 8:43 am
23 Apr 2008
Good plan, Tom
Piss off the people with all the guns!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:28 am
23 Apr 2008
Several strands
There has been lots of talk about survivalism in certain peak oil circles. From what I can see there are three strands:
- People who are obsessed about guns and defense, for whatever reason. This sub-culture has been around at a low level for a long time, but it gets an uptick when people are worried.
- People who are into self-sufficiency, preparedness, survival (as in wilderness survival, survival courses). Also gardening, food preparation, DIY. To me, this is a positive interest -- something that everybody should learn about. I've taken first aid and EMT courses, wilderness survival courses, etc. It's good for self-confidence and can be very useful.
- People who are into group efforts - neighborhoods, communities, etc. Another positive step, no matter what happens.
The challenge is to emphasize strands 2 and 3.Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:39 am
23 Apr 2008
Nut in Green Bay
http://www.gunsatcost.com/
He sold the guns used in two recent massares, over the net. He wants to make up for it by selling guns at cost so everyone can protect themselves.
Believe it or not, they featured him on the local news here with no comment, stating his case. As if he were a hero.
Mind boggling. There is no limit to the insanity of humans or the gullibility of mass media.
Did the bushies make it legal to sell guns over the net? How is this possible?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kuroneko Posted 12:44 pm
23 Apr 2008
#1 is still important
I would agree...but it would be foolish to ignore #1. Contemporary 'survivalists' are actively joining CSAs, exploring solar, permaculture, rooftop gardens, traditional skills, alternative medicine, rainwater harvesting, food preservation, and gun training. It's just like anything else.
Oh btw, this is a poignant article, and this one is simply terrifying
I sure wish Think Global would put a rush on that U.S. release of the Think City car. Even better? Open-source it to all car companies so they all get crackin'. Think Global won't be able to keep up with demand, that's for effing sure.
Oh yeah, last thing: Algae for Biodiesel y'all. Use the Algae for carbon-capture - burning it will produce more energy than other biofuels.
And Nanosolar solar sheets. Cheaper than coal? These are the waves of the future. HURRY THE EFF UP.
oh, I'm done.
Permalink
stickfigure Posted 5:17 pm
23 Apr 2008
Tom...food for the masses.
Tom will die, and probably be eaten by all the people in his commune that don't know how to provide for themselves outside of going down to the local store that "magically" restocks itself everyday.
This is typical of the "Non-survivalist" mindset. An acute missunderstanding of what is going to happend when a large population without water, food or supplies starts to get really desperate.
The enlightented, tolerant, thoughtful Liberals that over-populate our cities, will be competing with the homeless, impoverished, and racially "diverse" individuals that are surviving on our streets everyday. How ironic, that the people they have a bleeding heart for, will be better off in this situation, but ultimately just as doomed.
The thing about Liberals in general is that they have no agricultural skills, they aren't the farmers, ranchers or providers in American, the much distained and looked down upon "rednecks" are. The term "redneck" is actually related to the term "farmers tan", and with country folk in general. Liberals aren't hunters, and they aren't producers, they are the end users and the consumers. And they live in huge, over-clugged communities, that if something were to happen they wouldn't be able to get out and make it on their own.
On top of that they believe that "survivalists" are an example of the sterotyptical lunatic gun-owners, that stock up on beans, Chuck Norris DVD's, are "rednecks", "red-staters" and overall right-wingers and in the words of Bill Maher "shit-kickers". And doing anything that fits into that profile is something out in "right-field". So to be prepared and have a few weeks of food, water, and extra supplies is viewed as an extremist mindset and avoided. They believe that nothing will happen and if it were to happen, it's the police/military/redcross/governments respondsibility to help them. We all saw how effective that worked in NOLA, and that a small SHTF situation effected a very small city compared to LA or New York.
Tom is another example of someone who has no real grasp of reality, his idealogy governs his common scence, which is lacking. Instead of having some sort of plan, his plan is to let others take care of him. Or to take food from the "rednecks" who are the ranchers and providers, and somehow all these people are going to somehow learn to farmer overnight. This all fits into the socialist/communist mindset of taking from the rich for the betterment of the masses. The "community" will benefit as a whole during this time of crises by the farmer giving up his property. Regardless of the fact that besides being to one who owns it, he is the one who has put his blood sweat and tears into working it, and it was probably passed down through his family to him for generations. But that isn't important because the "redneck" farmer who is intellectually inferior to these enlightened liberals is supposed to do the right thing and provide for them. Because it doesn't fit into their ideals to take repsondsibility for themselves.
Sounds like a statistic in a refuge camp to me.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:29 pm
23 Apr 2008
Hehey
Whoops Tom, your thread attracted some of the less desirable internet neighbors. Shhh, maybe they'll go back to their gun blogs.
The key in dealing with good "folk" like this in real life? Avoid them if possible.
Diversion is good if an emergency encounter occurs. They are easily distracted by sirens, lights, or barking dog sounds. Then when they look away, run really fast!
I have learned this over a lifetime of rural survival.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:19 am
24 Apr 2008
Stickfigure
Tom is a farmer, which you would know if you could read.
Permalink
izzybelle Posted 12:55 am
24 Apr 2008
What about hemp?
In addition to algae as a biofuel, there's always hemp oil. Research it if you're not familiar and you'll see that it's a far more desirable crop from which to make fuel than corn. I wish the leaders of this country would get over their ridiculous
fear of hemp and make it legal to grow. Hemp COULD save the world if we'd let it.
Permalink
kuroneko Posted 1:25 am
24 Apr 2008
A farmer that says 'don't stock up' - ?
Small farmers in rural areas (like Tom) will profit off a SHTF scenario. I'm surprised he would not consider the value of self-protection however.
Everyone should be growing their own food as well as supporting CSAs. As well as having some safely stored back-up grains and dried beans and cans. And stored water, batteries, battery powered radios and flashlights and candles.
We're middle-class and already priced out of Whole Foods where we live due to all the other rising costs. And it's only getting worse folks. Self-sufficiency and self-protection. There were 2 3 armed robberies near where I work in the last month, and one was in broad day-light. It's going to get hairy folks. It's good to be smart and well trained. Trained gun-owners actually prevent over a million crimes every year.
Permalink
kuroneko Posted 1:26 am
24 Apr 2008
correction
make that 3 armed robberies, not 23 (typo)
Permalink
banditrn Posted 6:00 am
24 Apr 2008
Good post!
The people I network with would, and do believe in 'community' and sharing ideas, work and so forth.
We believe, though, as I'm sure you do, that we don't have the time, money or energy to contribute to the idea that a few must be responsible for many - or what has become known as today's 'welfare' society.
Permalink
banditrn Posted 6:03 am
24 Apr 2008
To amazngdrx
Less desirable, eh?! My, you're just full of hubris, aren't you?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:39 am
24 Apr 2008
Yikes x 2
The enlightented, tolerant, thoughtful Liberals that over-populate our cities, will be competing with the homeless, impoverished, and racially "diverse" individuals that are surviving on our streets everyday. How ironic, that the people they have a bleeding heart for, will be better off in this situation, but ultimately just as doomed.
The black people are coming! The black people are coming!
grist.org
Permalink
stickfigure Posted 1:40 am
26 Apr 2008
Free thinking and tolerant indeed.
I didn't say Tom wasn't a farmer, but his mindset is that somehow people who aren't farmers or producers by nature are going to come together and somehow, through kindness and understanding feed the completely desperate and doomed.
"If you could read..."
Mmmm, so you make the assumption that because I defend the common "Redneck" that I am uneducated as well? I wonder what makes Liberals think that because they pay for a college education that they are somehow smarter than everyone else? I have a college education, make over $100K a year, have two Avation Certifications and have never paid a cent for it. I definately have never had to pay for student loans. But apparently my education is worth less than yours...
I'm not afraid of black people...besides Blacks, there are homeless Latinos, Whites and Native Americans on the streets as well. In fact, my place of employment is far more diverse than you probably realize, and has been for decades long before the civilian job market adopted "diversity" as a base of employment criteria and long before Affirmative Action was law. Somehow you equate a way of seeing to world with another, which is repugnant as it is completely off base.
I just find it very ironic that Liberals pretend to care so much for people who could and would frankly care less for them in a SHTF situation. In fact Liberals will most likely be taken advantage of, because they have no real world survival skills and believe it to be below them to acquire such skills. And I'm not talking about going to REI to buy a tent. I'm talking about farming, livestocking, hunting, canning and preserving extended time away from the grid. Having to spend weeks or months in the wilderness on little to nothing besides what you can procure on your own.
They also believe that they have no right to self defense so if they are being taken advantage of they won't take the nessesary means to end the situation. They will try to talk their way out of it. I read sometime ago about a Liberal woman who wouldn't ever own or use a gun, because she was confident that she could talk her way out of being raped! Sorry, I just don't see this as an effective way of solving the problem.
So much for tolerance and understanding on this board, the idea of "free speach" here is "only if you think like us" The Borg would be proud. "Less desirables" WTF??? Again pre-assumption that knuckle dragging, gun-owning, ultra-male, extremists are beneath your enlightened way of thinking.
Ummm, I am amazed that when I step to the multi-million dollar aircraft that I fly for a living that you think I am actually beneath you in the food chain.
Ignorance is bliss I guess
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:54 am
26 Apr 2008
Whatever happened to Mike Ruppert?
Mike Ruppert is a former LAPD officer who came to believe that the U.S. government was behind 911. He also believed that the U.S. was going to rapidly collapse due to Peak Oil and was behind much of the turn to survivalism that still underpins much of the peak oil movement. He moved to the country, and after his office was burglarized he had a nervous breakdown and moved to Venezuela.
Pananoia? In any case, Mike is back in L.A., driving his new car and enjoying the suburban lifestyle!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:05 am
26 Apr 2008
Stickfigure --
I'm glad that you posted here so that I can ask you a few questions -- I'm not assuming that you "speak" for anybody, but a couple of things have been floating through my head, maybe you can help me here:
First, if you look throughout history, when the shit hits the fan, people tend to actually move toward cities, or at least a large group of people who are ideally situated within something like a fort or a castle. So,when things were relatively anarchic in Medieval times, the serfs "traded" much of their freedom to a group of knights, who could defend them, and whose castle could offer refuge.
It seems to me that if society totally breaks down, there will be roving gangs, mafia, maybe even larger "hordes", trying to survive out there. They will methodically find and "use" anything they can find, at the barrel of guns or whatever. They will outnumber any sophisticated survivalist or hippie commune or even some towns that aren't adequately protected, and leave nothing in their path, like a swarm of locusts.
Now, do survivalists understand that this will likely happen? That nothing that a survivalist does can defend against this situation? I don't think I'm just talking out of my butt here, there's a reason cities formed, some economic, but many having to do with security.
Second question: I have friends who rail against "Liberals"; I consider myself the the left of most liberals by the way; but what I don't understand is, why do people think "liberals" spend any portion of their time looking down their noses at other people? You know, "rednecks" and "farmers" and working people -- I heard the head of the machinists union, who should know better, refer to "latte drinkers" -- I, and everyone I know, is trying to survive, trying to help their family, which is why I have to cut this short, my 4 year old wants something -- but the last thing I'm doing is laughing about people who are less fortunate than I am. Where did you get the idea that I'm laughing?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:24 am
26 Apr 2008
Racist and grasping rather?
Why not? They did it in Cuba. Are you saying Americans can't do something the Cubans did already?
<snip>
You seem to confuse schooling with education. It's a common fault in the US where the school system serves as a class filter. Piloting an aircraft is NOT all that complicated despite the mysticism attached to it. It is certainly no more complicated than playing a fiddle. It's just a skill with a high barrier to entry. As to your income; the Enron debacle was organized by people who made millions yearly. Confusing income with value is a mistake the U.S. armed forces keep making in Iraq. A $100 EFP trumps a $250,000 APC every time. Value is independent of price.
And you want to everyone to think you spend a lot of time "on base" as in on the military reservation system. (but neglect to just make that statement) Is that the same system that rapes it's female members at a far greater rate than the general population and harasses it's non-christian minorities relentlessly? Do tell us all of your moral high ground.
You seem to be under the illusion that "Liberals" are all immigrants from some kind of "panseystan" where nobody works with their hands, nobody can shoot, and the food is all imported. Lots of "Liberals" I know grew up on farms and left because they were devalued at home by those "good, right-wing Christians." Some are farmers and many are veterans. There's a world outside your echo chamber if you just looked for it. We, collectively, have ALL the skills needed.
Sample size of one? I know a liberal who is an active environmental organizer, the size of a brown bear, a crack shot, and practices Brazilian Jujitsu. If he's angry at you: talk. We just have different definitions of self-defense. Assuming liberalism=pacifism is like assuming buddhism=pacifism; a mistake, occasionally fatal.
No assumption needed; the evidence is at hand.How useful is that aircraft without fuel? Or parts? You keep telling us that you are higher than we are but we see the pile of people you're standing on. No man eats by his labor alone; most here understand this.
Yet, you come off as very unhappy. A paradox.Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:09 am
26 Apr 2008
Yep very unpopular
"Less desirable, eh?!"
The kind of folks that are always compensating for their self esteem problems with "target practice". Over the net or in their backyards. Or worse yet out in the woods.
There goes the neighborhood! Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 1:15 pm
26 Apr 2008
¿Target Practice?
It occurs to me that on the net there really isn't such a thing as "target practice." Once you have structured your meme and pounded the send key that sucker is out of your hands. It can sink to the bottom or go viral in seconds.
I've seen stuff posted onto other boards that allow editing(not here) copied, linked, screen-grabbed and sent on to infamy in the five seconds it took for the OP to realize the error and delete.
In that sense ideas are like bullets; once sent downrange they are free from effective correction by the shooter/OP. There really is no such thing as "target practice." The lead flies, the post is sent, there are consequences; or not.
Actionconsequence but only the left side of that equation is controllable.
A hard thing to remember.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:39 pm
26 Apr 2008
example....
Typo:"Actionconsequence but only the left side of that equation is controllable."
.....should be action = consequence....
I went looking for the arrow key and was distracted while proofing. I type like a deer hunter on a dairy farm. "I'm telling you sir there was a six point buck in front of that there dead cow..."
Perception overrides vision also.
No, I don't own or handle guns.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
FarmerJ Posted 5:33 am
27 May 2008
mythologies
Stick, I'm a flaming liberal farmer who has all the skills you describe and more. I get along with my redneck family and friends and they put up with me. We recognize each other's skills and limitations.
It's so annoying when somebody creates a stereotype in his head and then tries to cram everybody in it. Broaden Your Horizons, pilot.
Though to be fair, Tom has some skewed ideas of survivalists. You can't just go to a site or two and read for awhile and have a fair idea of doomers. They come in all flavors, sizes, and types. You have your hard-core doomers who are certain we will have a fast crash and that Mutant Biker Zombies have to be defended against in well-armed enclaves. You have your soft crash doomers who basically are preparing for the Greater [Permanent] Depression following Peak Oil and are armed to take care of intermittent bottleneck attacks that might occur during the transition.
And some people just want to be more self-sufficient and develop a better sense of working community. Actually, aside from the more militant nutcase doomers, most of us know the value of community, that no one survives anything outside of it, for long.
So, I love your blog posts Tom, always, but spend some more time with the doomer communities. Each major site (peak oil, the oil drum, LATOC, and more) has its own personality. Check it out.
Permalink
billgee Posted 8:17 am
27 May 2008
guns
Who needs please when we've got guns?
Jack Johnson approximately
Permalink
Arizona Rifleman Posted 11:45 am
27 May 2008
Re: Nut in Green Bay
amazingdrx, I've answered your question here.
In short:
- No, one cannot directly purchase guns over the internet and have them shipped directly to one's home.
- Rather, one can purchase guns online and have them shipped to a local gun shop. The gun shop then must do the normal paperwork and background check as if they were selling out of their own inventory.
- This has been the case since 1968.
- Prior to 1968, one could mail-order (as the internet had yet to be invented) guns and have them shipped directly to them.
People often buy guns online (and have them shipped to their local dealer for pickup) because online vendors usually have better prices and a better selection of products than local stores do. Also, buying online means one need not pay sales tax, saving a lot of money.Also, your claim that Mr. Thompson, owner of TGSCOM and GunsAtCost.com, sold guns to two killers is false: he sold magazines (an unregulated component) to one individual who later committed crimes at NIU. The VT shooter ordered a gun from TGSCOM, had it shipped to a local dealer, underwent the necessary paperwork and background check, passed the check, and then later committed his heinous act. The actions of TGSCOM and the local dealer were in complete compliance with the law, and they bear no responsibility for the killer's terrible acts.
I applaud Mr. Thompson's effort to allow people to more affordably purchase guns for their own protection, recreation, and other lawful purposes. Why shouldn't he be allowed to offer his legal products at cost if he so wishes?
If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me directly (contact information is available on my site).
Permalink
Oblio13 Posted 5:26 am
29 May 2008
I try to be both self-reliant and kind.
You can ride your unicorn over the rainbow to my house and I'll toss you a can of beans and a bar of soap before I send you on your way.
Really dude, I've spent time in Haiti and Zimbabwe. Learn to take care of yourself, because other people aren't going to do it for you once they get hungry. Work on your fantasy after you've provided for your family.
Permalink
whindsoull Posted 9:04 am
05 Dec 2008
Well, actually...
Tom,
By stocking emergency supplies before a disaster strikes (as even FEMA recommends), I avoid contributing to the panic-buying. By not stripping all the bottled water off the shelves, I'm leaving it for other unprepared people such as yourself. I also stock bulk dry goods such as rice so that I can hand it out in a disaster to people who don't have any.
Furthermore, most survivalists DO work very hard to prevent disasters from occurring. I'm a member of our county CERT (Civilian Emergency Response Team), and am certified in emergency medicine and hazmat operations. I do this for the explicit purpose of being able to help contain and resolve emergency situations when they occur, while you sit around and wait for government hand-outs.
During California wildfires, tons of survivalists work day and night using their own personal radio equipment to aid in police, fire, and medical personnel communication.
Beyond that, most survivalists I know ARE police, fire, medical, or military personnel.
Oh, and one other thing: There's this odd misconception that survivalists are somehow waiting for the earth to blow up or something. Disasters happen everyday, all over the planet. I know survivalists who were involved in Hurricane Katrina, and in the economic collapse and anarchy of Argentina a while back. Both were quite safe and secure because of their preparations, and, because their immediate needs were taken care of, were able to help other get through the troubled times.
It's not for if the world end...it's for if YOUR world ends. If I were to lose my job right now, I would be completely fine to go without any income for six months. I have plenty of food and other supplies, and wouldn't have to panic. How many people can say that?
I also find it amusing how you claim that survivalism is a "crudely individualistic" mindset, and then immediately go on to quote a survivalist talking about how in a disaster, it's crucial that we all work together for mutual support and aid.
As for the gun issue, it's a sad fact that in disaster situations, many people decide to survive by taking from others, often violently. To use my earlier example, it happened in Argentina. The survivalist I mentioned had several situations where violent individuals approached him demanding that he give them supplies. He simply pointed his gun towards them , and told them to leave. He never had to fire a shot, and prevented a violent situation from occurring.
Considering the Liberals' platform of tolerance and diversity, it's amazing the blatantly hateful remarks that get directed at us from you guys. You denounce stereotyping, and then assert that all those survivalist types are a bunch of nutjobs. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Permalink