I think this should be required reading these days. While people may think that events leading to this sort of situation aren't very likely, it will severely screw up your world. This post is a clear point that just getting out of the city isn't going to help you much.Over the years, many people have told us that WTSHTF, they are coming to our place in the country. When people say things like this, we hear, "...so that you can take care of me." This document is presented as a source of information for those who might need a realignment of their expectations, a clarification of ours or both. It should serve as a harsh wake up call for anyone who plans to flee to someone else's survival retreat should the need arise.
If you have neglected, failed or refused to complete your plans for survival, here are things you need to know, should you decide to depend on someone who has been more diligent.
* No One Will Provide You With Shelter
* No One Will Feed You
* No One Will Provide Drinking Water
* No One Will Protect You
* No One Will Provide Medical Attention
"The Promised Land"
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
"The Promised Land"
http://www.survivalblog.com/2010/10/wel ... and_b.html
Evil is evil, no matter how small
This whole survivalism thing is an American Wild West fantasy, in all but a few instances when societies breakdown, you get civil war, local warlords rise up and then martial law follows.
In most cases the winning faction was a political movement that existed before the social breakdown (Think Communists in Russia and China, facists in Germany and Spain. In the case of the English civil war, Cromwell, Yugoslavia Tito, after it fell Milosevik, the French revolution gave us Napoleon)
Small groups of 30 or 40 survivalists with a couple of guns each are no match for government forces and the sad reality is during crises the government doesn't get weaker, it usually gets stronger.
That's what survivalist lack: political ideology, in an era of social chaos if you want to survive you need to move up the ranks of a powerful revolutionary movement (and that movement then needs to win).
In most cases the winning faction was a political movement that existed before the social breakdown (Think Communists in Russia and China, facists in Germany and Spain. In the case of the English civil war, Cromwell, Yugoslavia Tito, after it fell Milosevik, the French revolution gave us Napoleon)
Small groups of 30 or 40 survivalists with a couple of guns each are no match for government forces and the sad reality is during crises the government doesn't get weaker, it usually gets stronger.
That's what survivalist lack: political ideology, in an era of social chaos if you want to survive you need to move up the ranks of a powerful revolutionary movement (and that movement then needs to win).
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
Anyhow I think the real point I was trying to make was that history tends to teach us that when societies collapse, you don't get disorganise mad-max style hoards of lawless desparadoes. You get organized hoards of lawful (in the sense they make their own law) despardoes. When societies collapses the people who will try to monopolize the dwindling resources will be wearing military uniform, be a part of an army or militia, be lead by a general and they probably won't burst in through the windows of your house, instead they'll knock on the door, authoritatively tell you your house has hereby been annexed by the revoltion and politely ask you to pack your bags and leave or at least provide food for the soldiers of the revolution and let them sleep there, if you refuse then they'll beat you up, imprison you or kill you.
The only thing that has historically proven to be powerful enough to topple a government is another government, or at least a militia with the equivalent level of organization.
As such the idea that everyone will have to become self-sufficient jacks-of-all-trades doesn't hold much weight, the militia will probably have doctors, tank drivers, serfs to work in the fields, in otherwords some level of specialisation in labour.
People will be dirt poor and badly governed, but they won't be free.
Survivalism is a fantasy or at least a middle class hobby in anycase if life inside the WTSHTF has anything more to offer in terms of standard of living and wealth than life under the new revolutionary regime then the revolutionary armies will seize it and evict everyone who has set up camp there.
If on the otherhand life is so awful in WTSHTF "promised land" that the revolutionaries see nothing of value to steal, then why bother living in there in the first place, why not join the revolution?
The only thing that has historically proven to be powerful enough to topple a government is another government, or at least a militia with the equivalent level of organization.
As such the idea that everyone will have to become self-sufficient jacks-of-all-trades doesn't hold much weight, the militia will probably have doctors, tank drivers, serfs to work in the fields, in otherwords some level of specialisation in labour.
People will be dirt poor and badly governed, but they won't be free.
Survivalism is a fantasy or at least a middle class hobby in anycase if life inside the WTSHTF has anything more to offer in terms of standard of living and wealth than life under the new revolutionary regime then the revolutionary armies will seize it and evict everyone who has set up camp there.
If on the otherhand life is so awful in WTSHTF "promised land" that the revolutionaries see nothing of value to steal, then why bother living in there in the first place, why not join the revolution?
jmc wrote:This whole survivalism thing is an American Wild West fantasy, in all but a few instances when societies breakdown, you get civil war, local warlords rise up and then martial law follows.
In most cases the winning faction was a political movement that existed before the social breakdown (Think Communists in Russia and China, facists in Germany and Spain. In the case of the English civil war, Cromwell, Yugoslavia Tito, after it fell Milosevik, the French revolution gave us Napoleon)
Small groups of 30 or 40 survivalists with a couple of guns each are no match for government forces and the sad reality is during crises the government doesn't get weaker, it usually gets stronger.
That's what survivalist lack: political ideology, in an era of social chaos if you want to survive you need to move up the ranks of a powerful revolutionary movement (and that movement then needs to win).
This is a notion that I have been pondering for years. Suppose you do successfully stockpile enough food for you and your family to get by on for a few years, and suppose you manage to create a decent survival shelter. If a Financial collapse occurs, and the situation gets dire for the city folk, do you think the state is going to let you sit the unrest out?
It is my understanding that hoarding is illegal in some if not all states. Unless you are willing to disappear into your hole in the ground and remain there for the duration, your presence will be noted in the community, and it will be further noted that you don't seem to be as hungry as you ought to be. The next thing coming will be the authorities to investigate your situation, and then to seize your food and assets while charging you with "hoarding."
As JMC indicated, the trend (during a crisis) tends to be more authoritarian, not less. A current theory regarding an apocalyptic fiasco in the United States is that it would break into five separate regions, of which California will be the hub of the western region, and Texas will become the hub of the Southwestern region, etc. I dare say things will not go so badly for those of us that happen to be in the Texas region. At least THEY know how to create jobs, unlike California and New York who only seem to know how to make a bad situation worse.
I think at this point that I would prefer being ruled from Austin rather than D.C. (More likely Dallas would become the Capitol of the Republic of Greater Texas.)
You pretty much articulated my thinking. Anarchy is a vacuum. Power will step in. (Libertarians can't seem to understand this.)jmc wrote:Anyhow I think the real point I was trying to make was that history tends to teach us that when societies collapse, you don't get disorganise mad-max style hoards of lawless desparadoes. You get organized hoards of lawful (in the sense they make their own law) despardoes. When societies collapses the people who will try to monopolize the dwindling resources will be wearing military uniform, be a part of an army or militia, be lead by a general and they probably won't burst in through the windows of your house, instead they'll knock on the door, authoritatively tell you your house has hereby been annexed by the revoltion and politely ask you to pack your bags and leave or at least provide food for the soldiers of the revolution and let them sleep there, if you refuse then they'll beat you up, imprison you or kill you.
The only thing that has historically proven to be powerful enough to topple a government is another government, or at least a militia with the equivalent level of organization.
As such the idea that everyone will have to become self-sufficient jacks-of-all-trades doesn't hold much weight, the militia will probably have doctors, tank drivers, serfs to work in the fields, in otherwords some level of specialisation in labour.
People will be dirt poor and badly governed, but they won't be free.
Survivalism is a fantasy or at least a middle class hobby in anycase if life inside the WTSHTF has anything more to offer in terms of standard of living and wealth than life under the new revolutionary regime then the revolutionary armies will seize it and evict everyone who has set up camp there.
If on the otherhand life is so awful in WTSHTF "promised land" that the revolutionaries see nothing of value to steal, then why bother living in there in the first place, why not join the revolution?
I don't really understand this piece. Imagine not only losing your electricity but coming under bombardment by the world's biggest military power at the same time - would that be worse or better? So the inhabitants of Iraq didn't being by going around looting from each other, even though that was the scenario.
I don't dispute things would get very dicey, but if it is really the case that a society would simply start attacking each other for their survival without regard for any other, then that is a very very sad testament to modern 'society'. In fact, all it says is that we don't have a society, we merely have a rabble controlled by the threat of sanction on their behaviour....
...yet that same rabble then ponders and complains while the Government seeks tighter constraint on its people.
I don't dispute things would get very dicey, but if it is really the case that a society would simply start attacking each other for their survival without regard for any other, then that is a very very sad testament to modern 'society'. In fact, all it says is that we don't have a society, we merely have a rabble controlled by the threat of sanction on their behaviour....
...yet that same rabble then ponders and complains while the Government seeks tighter constraint on its people.
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
That's part of it Chris. We have a very large segment of the population dependent on the government. They think they are entitled to certain things, and when the gov goes caput, they will be out to get it directly. A lot of people find we have a corrupt society that has no moral teaching, and thus while gov might be able to take totalitarian control, it is going to be limited in scope and effectiveness. There will be places where anarchy will reign for a while.
A financial failure will mean the gov can't depend on foreign help, and there would just be far too many to deal with for them to get reasonable control outside of certain areas. Plus, you have the desertions and other issues that will happen in such a situation. Washington is going to end up like Kabul, a useless government that has barely any control over the territories it claims. An "empty state" as John Robb calls it.
I think in an America after such a crisis, locality is going to take precedence, and all the resilient localities will be such because they will be taking care of their own, and negotiating with their neighbors--refugees from untenable big cities will be on their own without infrastructure to get them the food and water needed to make such concentration practical.
A financial failure will mean the gov can't depend on foreign help, and there would just be far too many to deal with for them to get reasonable control outside of certain areas. Plus, you have the desertions and other issues that will happen in such a situation. Washington is going to end up like Kabul, a useless government that has barely any control over the territories it claims. An "empty state" as John Robb calls it.
I think in an America after such a crisis, locality is going to take precedence, and all the resilient localities will be such because they will be taking care of their own, and negotiating with their neighbors--refugees from untenable big cities will be on their own without infrastructure to get them the food and water needed to make such concentration practical.
Evil is evil, no matter how small
If you really think the USA is going to collapse I would say the best thing you could do to prepare for that collapse would be to sell your guns and stockpiles of food, cancel your insurance payments to WTSHTF and use the money raised to buy a one-way ticket to Austrailia (after having applied for a visa to work there)
Australia has an unemployment rate of 5% the Aussie dollar is almost at parity with the US dollar for the first time in history and its mining industry is booming.
In the event of the collapse of U.S. civilization I have to say I'd rather live in an apartment in Sydney with running water and electricity then in a cult-like community located in some s**thole in the middle of the desert.
Australia has an unemployment rate of 5% the Aussie dollar is almost at parity with the US dollar for the first time in history and its mining industry is booming.
In the event of the collapse of U.S. civilization I have to say I'd rather live in an apartment in Sydney with running water and electricity then in a cult-like community located in some s**thole in the middle of the desert.
Just last night I saw a documentary on the legendary Shawnee Indian Chief, Tecumseh. He pledged to defend the Indian lands in the Ohio region, and when faced with an American force sufficiently large to make his British allies abandon them, he and his warriors fought and died.jmc wrote:If you really think the USA is going to collapse I would say the best thing you could do to prepare for that collapse would be to sell your guns and stockpiles of food, cancel your insurance payments to WTSHTF and use the money raised to buy a one-way ticket to Austrailia (after having applied for a visa to work there)
Australia has an unemployment rate of 5% the Aussie dollar is almost at parity with the US dollar for the first time in history and its mining industry is booming.
In the event of the collapse of U.S. civilization I have to say I'd rather live in an apartment in Sydney with running water and electricity then in a cult-like community located in some s**thole in the middle of the desert.
As the British prepared to run he gave them one last speech. (Speaking to General Proctor, excerpted below.)
Father! You have got the arms and ammunition which our great father sent for his red children. If you have an idea of going away, give them to us, and you may go and welcome; for us, our lives are in the hands of the Great Spirit. We are determined to defend our lands, and if it is His will we wish to leave our bones upon them.
And the rest here.
This notion sums up my feelings on the matter.
Uh. No. Rational behavior. If cooperation pays off better than the alternative people (generally) cooperate.I don't dispute things would get very dicey, but if it is really the case that a society would simply start attacking each other for their survival without regard for any other, then that is a very very sad testament to modern 'society'. In fact, all it says is that we don't have a society, we merely have a rabble controlled by the threat of sanction on their behaviour....
People do what profits them. No sanction required.
It all starts with the fact that the heat machine has to be fueled. All else follows.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Exactly.MSimon wrote:Uh. No. Rational behavior. If cooperation pays off better than the alternative people (generally) cooperate.I don't dispute things would get very dicey, but if it is really the case that a society would simply start attacking each other for their survival without regard for any other, then that is a very very sad testament to modern 'society'. In fact, all it says is that we don't have a society, we merely have a rabble controlled by the threat of sanction on their behaviour....
(My post was meant to be a counter-point to show the initial argument was false. Not a position statement!!)
Probably the best example of a modern state falling into anarchy would be Yugoslavia. Basically, when the Serb army moved in the local women would survive best by running for the border and the local men by running for the hills. Anybody that tried to hang around and fight the modern army got killed. If there is no border left then the people who survive are the handful left after the famine.
CHoff