Many prepper will not survive (farmer, acres, quiet, pistol)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Either I have ADD or I cannot follow this guy (in the blog)... it didn't make any sense!
I agree about the statement "Many Preppers Will Not Survive" though.
Many "preppers" are more aptly described as "Hoarders" and/or "Gearheads". It's one thing to have the ultimate decked out AR-15, camo suit, web gear, cases of MRE's ect, ect. and quite another to keep your head when things REALLY go bad. Survival isn't about the tools... (any decent primitive skills enthusiast can make and collect all the tools necessary for survival straight from the natural environment) it's about what is going on between the survivalist's ears.
Those who are strongly isolationist (often mistaken as "independent" in the prepper world) will find the going is REALLY tough when you are a permanent 1-man show; they forget humans are a social species by nature who need to go out and make meaningful connections with others from time to time just to stay sane. Beyond that, there just isn't time in the day to do EVERYTHING that needs to be done to live well. After all, even if you spend dawn to dusk laboring on your 100% self-sufficient farm in the boonies, you can't stay up and guard it all night when desperate bandits are about... the same goes for you spam bunker (aka, juicy target). We are still gonna need others during the Apocalypse!
A real survivalist is "The Grey Man" out on the street... the guy who doesn't give everyone else the jitters as he walks by. He's not marching down the street in his open carry state with his favorite rifle and brace of pistols shouting anti-government slogans, covering his "tactical" pickup truck with edgy bumper stickers or bragging about how bad-assed and prepared for "SHTF" he is on the internet (essentially painting bull's eyes on himself with his ISP address) and generally making an ass of himself.
A real survivalist is friendly, honest, trustworthy, hard working, gregarious and reliable. He has good friends, is well respected in his community for good reason and is the guy who steps up to the plate and gets the hard stuff done when everyone else is afraid to try. He's humble too... always ready to help but not judgmental or elitist. In a way, he's a real Boy Scout!
A real survivalist knows HOW to do things... he's a jack of all trades who can fix your plumbing, fix your car, fix dinner, fix a sick cow and fix the hole in your pants, all in one day. He knows how things work, how to troubleshoot and how to build/repair/maintain them. He knows how to hunt, fish, trap, farm, raise animals and even collect enough bugs to make a meal if necessary.
A real survivalist is educated. He may not have a piece of paper saying so, but he knows stuff... LOTS of stuff. He knows knowledge is power and has taken it to heart. He probably has his own personal library spanning a broad range of subjects. He would consider a life without continuously learning to be a life wasted.
A real survivalist is brave, but not reckless or a show-off. He can come up with and execute strategies that actually work in real-life. He has nothing to prove to the world and has no interest in taking unnecessary risks, but is a good judge and a skilled fighter when it's necessary. He knows when to NOT fight and yes, he know when to! He can keep his wits about him, even in the worst circumstances.
A real survivalists loves life. He loves to have fun but gets sick to his stomach if that "fun" involves hurting other people physically or emotionally for his benefit. He's not the kind of guy who would kill for sport; if he hunts, he goes into the woods for food and raw materials, not to conquer Mother Nature. He is part of his world, does well by god, isn't aloof and is always willing to help those in need.
In short, a REAL survivalist embodies the highest ideals of humanity at large. Humans are the original survivalists, after all; tens of thousands of years of evolutionary pressures have made us a certain way for a reason...those are the kind of people who survive when things get tough!
... women would be the first targets
... so they're soft targets.
... you have to have not only weapons
... you have to know self defense
... chemical weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique13
.. immediate death
... if you're elderly or female you just don't open the door period.
... guns blazing at any time during 24 hours would instantly wipe out those in a compound with no weapons.
We can see your mind-set on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique13
look at what happened to the non preppers during Katrina and Sandy. that's all.
Yes, as you say, all women were the first 'targets'. Guns were blazing and everyone not armed was wiped out instantly.
Any that think differently are put down as Quote: the special free-thinker who has "got it all figured out"? End Quote.
I don't care what you think, but I do have a problem with those that feel intellectually superior deciding that anyone that doesn't agree with them is unable to form their own opinions and must be only parroting Quote: talking point from a blog/radio/podcast/etc firebrand to attract attention End quote.
You're the one calling people "sheep". That suggests a superiority complex. Your discourse implies that you are the free thinker, hounded and feared. That's what is drawing my attention.
Quote:
Those that make their own decisions are not welcomed by those that follow a specific ideology, thus the main content of this thread underscoring that "you will die anyway, why try to have some food or water put by? Our zombie hords will kill and eat you as soon as we can get away with it".
I don't think individual posters, on second thought, SOME of the individual posters with this view point don't see people that have extra food or rations as a danger, but those with a specific political motivation?
You Bet.
Quote:
Self determined people that don't follow groupthink are always a danger to those in power and their followers.
Your conceptualisation of power/the government is far too unitary and depersonalised.
A rural family man living just above poverty isn't a threat to anyone, be he a thinker or "Dancing with the Stars" fan-drone.
Quote:
I live near the Yellowstone Caldura. If it blows there is a better than average chance I would be instantly incinerated. Fine. Can't prepare for that more than being at peace with my maker.
Admirably realistic.
Quote:
For blizzards, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, I have a good chance of surviving them without depending on the government to take care of me.
Quote:
If I don't need the government to provide my food and shelter, why do I need them to be controling every aspect of my life?
And yet the government subsidises (indirectly) much of the food supply and opens up vast swathes of the country to viable settlement via transport infrastructure. Government, small or large, isn't inherently good or evil.
Quote:
This kind of thinking is a danger to those whose existence depends on people buying into the political ideology that government is good and will provide.
This kind of thinking is fear-based and doesn't solve the original problem (poor governance).
Quote:
If I don't need them to provide for me, I don't need them, so their followers that do depend on them must quash any with a dissenting viewpoint so that others don't wake up and also learn they don't need Big Brother to watch over them.
Simple.
Those that are self sufficent, prepared, survivors are a danger to the status quo.
Again, not really. A threat to the status quo would be a large communist/communitarian grassroots uprising. Or radical terrorists blowing up major commercial assets. The self-sufficient preppers who head for the hinterland are (in a certain view) surrendering control of the towns, cities, and much of the countryside to the Big Bad, not challenging it.
who says that it has to be one or the other, indefinitely, hmm? I advocate being alone, or with just spouse/minor children, or maybe 1 good friend (who's proven to be worth a hoot in crises) for a year, while nearly all the contagious diseases, fires and fighting will run rampant. then hook up with the (proven viable) remainder with whom you can.
It's interesting that on threads such as this one, there are always a few who try to defend dependence and attack independence and/or defend ignorance and attack knowledge. All the while, I assume, they can't see that their logic is bass ackwards. Just as with any topic and situation, there will be independent people who lose the game; there will be dependent people who lose the game. But can you name one (realistic) endeavor in life where the unprepared/unlearned, on average, end up in a better position than the prepared/learned. Common sense, please!
I'm sure that some of you folks out there would argue that you could teach a class of quantum physics, after never having had even a basic physics course in your life, better than a PhD physics professor whose specialty is quantum physics. Or, you'd claim that you can cook up French cuisine in the most expensive, posh restaurant, not knowing how to open a can of Campbell soup, better than a 20-year-experienced French chef. Or perhaps you could do open heart surgery on your neighbor with an ailing heart... because you played the board game "Operation" when you were a kid and assembled the "Invisible Man" model. And you could do it better than an open heart surgeon with years of experience.
I say bull.
I say that it is beneath common sense to understand that a person who studies, practices, drills, and lives any endeavor in life is better prepared for that endeavor than someone who has done nothing in that endeavor. Does it ALWAYS mean he/she is perfect or invincible or "untouchable" in his/her skills? No. But more often than not, the experienced person will prevail with greater likelihood than the inexperienced person. If someone is used to scratching out a primitive living (or practicing "survival skills") and you are not, who is better equipped for primitive living (or "survival skills")? If practicing and studying did nothing to further skills and knowledge, then there would be no point of doing anything at all in life. We'd all be perfect in every regard and able to handle ourselves in any conceivable manner with absolutely no experience. Right. Use you heads, folks. Please.
You're the one calling people "sheep". That suggests a superiority complex. Your discourse implies that you are the free thinker, hounded and feared. That's what is drawing my attention.
If you prefer then instead of sheep, how about people that buy into groupthink? People that depend on others to make decisions for them, people that can't live without volumes of rules and regulations about what they can or can't do?
I was forced to live in several major cities, the level of ignorance about any number of subjects was disheartening at best, but they had the political hyperbole down pat. The majority of folks I talked to weren't stupid, but they had been living in a herd in crowded conditions for so long they counldn't coneptualize making your own decisions about anything because "isn't that against the law?"
Not hounded, but not trusted, suspected, always watched because you never know what some crazed "prepper" may do.
I know how to blend and stay below the radar because I have had to work with enough government to realize that the intrests of the people mean nothing. Keeping those in power that feed the gravy train means everything.
Your conceptualisation of power/the government is far too unitary and depersonalised.
Exactly the definition of an overreaching power hungry faceless government.
A rural family man living just above poverty isn't a threat to anyone, be he a thinker or "Dancing with the Stars" fan-drone.
Who says I am living just above poverty line? I said I live close to the bone, which means I don't engage in commercializm and buying every new toy that comes on the market. I don't spend my money on things I consider frivoless or unnecessary to my own survival.
The less I spend, the less can be tracked. The more I provide for myself off the radar is that much more that nobody knows I have if there is an emergency.
If I don't look like a target that has anything anybody else would want, I am a low value target not worthy of attacking.
Sometimes, the best way to win a battle is to never join the fight in the first place.
Admirably realistic.
Dead is dead, If there is life there is hope and the possiblity to rebuild.
And yet the government subsidises (indirectly) much of the food supply and opens up vast swathes of the country to viable settlement via transport infrastructure. Government, small or large, isn't inherently good or evil.
And those programs were developed not for the maximum efficency of agriculture, just to stabilize the food supply which because of the stringent requirements and paperwork have moved that money from small holders and homesteaders to corporate farms which produce more per acre or square foot.
Those subsidies do not encourage small holders and family farms to start, just to keep the big producers operating at a profit.
A smallholder with 20 sheep and a milk cow can't produce enough food to feed a nation, but Monsanto or Conagra can by controlling the food supply and infrastructure to move it to market.
This kind of thinking is fear-based and doesn't solve the original problem (poor governance).
Fear would indicate I am afraid of the government, which I am not, however I am well aware of their power to take property, (emminent domain), steal money, (taxes) levy fines if you don't conform to their vision, (EPA) and in general, they have the power to destroy any individual with barely a thought.
So as with any dangerous animal or situation, you are aware of the danger and take steps to protect yourself from them.
Part of that is to elect representatives that will counter those that wish to harm the nation, (see the change that took place in the US House of Representatives after the 2010 elections. The executive was effectivly hobbled and unable to pursue their agenda), but that isn't the entire solution as long as there are those that wish the country harm in postions of power, and they are voted in by the population centers that are peopled by voters that depend on the government for everything.
Several states have been electing governors and legislators that do represent the state and their citizens, and the fed has been sueing them and attacking them on multiple levels.
The people still fight, but the fed has power and until there is enough abuse by the fed to cause the majority of people to wake up to what is happening, nothing will on a national scale.
The pain must become personal.
SO I will take care of myself until if and when a majority is hungry enough and cold enough and the gravy train dries up enough for the citizens to demand a change and vote the established power out of office.
Until that day I am much better off being a little wary of the government and keeping to my own counsel.
Probably won't happen until a major disaster happens, maybe if the cell phones ceased to function for a couple of days....
Again, not really. A threat to the status quo would be a large communist/communitarian grassroots uprising. Or radical terrorists blowing up major commercial assets. The self-sufficient preppers who head for the hinterland are (in a certain view) surrendering control of the towns, cities, and much of the countryside to the Big Bad, not challenging it.
Too late on that one, It's already happened by stealth, and by foreign agents.
One of the best reasons that I live in the hinterland, or Flyover Country as it is called by the elite, is because it is beneath their notice. Only "Uneducated Hicks and Rednecks" live there, and they don't make large campaign contributions to the right party, so they don't matter.
I have no use for the entitled elite that know what is "best" for me.
Surrender the cities? No, for the most part I see those as enemy strongholds where the voting numbers are of folks completely dependent on the government dole, that support the government takeover of all profitable private enterprise and limit the freedoms of the common citizen.
Look at a map of how the last presidential election went. You have small blue areas and large expanses of red.
The battle lines were drawn long ago.
You can believe in the government if you wish, you can depend on them to give you food and shelter and "Free" healthcare if you want.
I'll take my chance with folks who actually take care of themselves without the fed holding their hand.
I"ll take my chances alone. I know many farmers/ranchers, and almost none are any better prepped than the typical Joe in the city. I kid you not. They buy all their food at Wally's, just like you do.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,159,764 times
Reputation: 8105
Just have a coupla cases of Dinty Moore to share with the Collective when they come knocking, but keep the pallet of MREs, chocolate bars, coffee, bourbon, and canned peaches hidden down in the basement.
I"ll take my chances alone. I know many farmers/ranchers, and almost none are any better prepped than the typical Joe in the city. I kid you not. They buy all their food at Wally's, just like you do.
You must know the outliers then. The vast majority of farmers/ranchers are much more better prepped than the typical Joe in the city.
who says that it has to be one or the other, indefinitely, hmm? I advocate being alone, or with just spouse/minor children, or maybe 1 good friend (who's proven to be worth a hoot in crises) for a year, while nearly all the contagious diseases, fires and fighting will run rampant. then hook up with the (proven viable) remainder with whom you can.
I live out in the country for 6 years now and with that said I do not think the lone ranger approach is a good idea. A roving gang would be too big of a challenge for a household and most likely they would end up dead. That has not stopped me for preparing for that situation I can shoot off 128 rounds with just changing magazines. I have back up on water, electricity, and heat, food stored, garden, can hunt and fish but it would take one roving gang and I would be dead.
I know my survival depends on what the people around me do. If the people organize and set a parameter that is patrolled and the community works and sticks together everyone would have a better chance of surviving roving gangs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please.
