Happy Easter.

bonniebede

Hi all, Happy Easter.

Hope you don't mind me posting this here...if this topic just annoys you feel free to ignore.

Having just emerged from my self imposed silence for the last forty days (only on the boards, you understand, not in real life) ((not that this isn't real life but you know what I mean, anyway back to the topic)) I'm wondering if anyone has any reflections on how their religious beliefs (I include atheism and agnosticism in that) has any bearing on their approach to survival/prepping?

Here's a few from my perspective, probably fairly random collection of musings.

1. Having absorbed a prepping mentality, I have started thinking of spiritual exercises as the ultimate prepping, because I believe in an afterlife.

2. Prepping often makes me think of combat, how to hold onto a food store for example, also self defence. I also think of my spiritual life as a form of combat, there is a goal to be achieved, a vicious enemy who is skilled at both overt and covert activities, and against whom i need to a) train and prepare (hence the last forty days) b) understand in terms of his favourite tactics (reccommend Ignatius of loyola on that one) and c)never compromise with.

3) Prepping has also lead me to gardening to try to upskill in case i ever have to live as a self sufficient farmer, but there are some useful spiritual lessons there too, like using good seed, tending to keep from being choked with weeds, patience to wait for a harvest, the fact that you do all the work upfront and get the reward at the end.

4)This is probably a little on the weird side. I think the end of our world is coming soon, based on my reading of scripture. Now to clarify.
a)I believe there will be a total end of the world sometime, like the end of time, thats it , all done, pack up and go home, nothing more to see here folks, sort of end of the world sometime. Scripture very clear that 'you know not the day of the hour' so I don't worry about it one little bit.
b) I know that for sure within the next century (probably much much sooner) there going to be an end for me personally (stroke, heart attack, drooling old age, plague, radiation poisoning, zombie attack, whatever); while prepping may help to delay that a bit, nothing in the world can stop it coming hence the spiritual prepping for what comes after
c)A lot of scripture about end of the world actually refers to the end of civilisations. In the span of world history that the bible covers there have been several such 'end of the age' type events, for the egyptians, assyrians, greeks, not to menition for the jews (like the deportation of all remaining adults into slavery). It seems to me that the clues in scripture about when a culture or civilisation gets ripe for that sort of break down or civilisation collapsing time, are fairly straightforward. And can be fairly easily discerned in our own western culture. (Read Romans 1 for example.)
d) Christians have frequently been persecuted. Including in this country. Sometimes by other Christians. In other places, including currently by those of other faiths, and in recent centuries on the grandest scale by those of none. Learning how to live simply and self sufficiently provides a way of being sufficiently detached from the system to allow for independence of thought and action. (No not military action:(, I mean actions like feeding yourself and your family even when you get fired for upholding some ethical principle;:rolleyes:)As our civilisation declines, I think this persecution is going to intensify, first by the exclusion of people's opinion from public life, followed by the exclusion of those people from public life. (Indeed this is already well under way).

5) When they say 'you can't take it with you' I usually think they haven't understood what a bug out bag is for.

If you think this post is annoying, please ignore it. If you think It should be posted in the religion section, though i bow to the wisdom of the mods, I have posted it here because in the religion section they don't get prepping so it would be a waste of time over there.

You may think I'm a nut, but then I get that a lot, and have developed a mental reflex of thinking 'yeah, you think i'm nuts now, but wait until all the food is gone in the shops and you'll wish you were me'.:)

THats it. And remember, we don't mind if atheists enjoy the chocolate eggs too.

evilmonkee

bonniebede wrote: »

I have posted it here because in the religion section they don't get prepping so it would be a waste of time over there.

Without getting into a religious debate, debating the meaning of scripture, difference within the teachings of different religions, How religion fits in with kill or be killed situations (turn the other cheek) whether the Aztecs had some divine insight which science has overlooked, the fact that many major world religions are contributing huge amounts towards the physical destruction of this planet etc.

I just wanted to point out that the religious section would get this topic (likely more so than here) as many religions teach their followers aspects of "prepping" as you describe ie. to have a supply of food, water and any products which are necessary to their survival as well as training their "soul" in case of such a disaster. Simple examples are Mormons who are instructed to keep a years supply of food and Jesus who spent 40 days in the desert fasting and meditating while surviving with the minimal necessary to sustain human life.

bonniebede

Yeah, thats what I thought, that there had to to be other preppers with a bit of a religious thing going on. Specially the mormons. but with the best will in the world I can't seem to surface any in Ireland.Most of the mormons i've met over here are Americans on mission, and i suppose reasonably enough the whole keeping a years supply of food thing only becomes something you get into after you finish your wanderjahr and settle down.

I know the stereotypical American prepper is meant to be a gun toting bible chomping nut, who thinks the republicans are a bunch of pinko commies; there are so few preppers in ireland there doesn't seem to be enough to develop a stereotype! Anyway, we all know that that american stereotype doesn't take into account the eminently reasonable and rational nature of preparedness as a timewaster obsession hobby good way to spend an afternoon.

never mind. it was just a thought.

FrostyJack

For me the idea of prepping would be against the idea of the after life. If there was magical place where everything is great I would welcome the end of the world. I wouldn't wear seat belts etc. It is more likely religious beliefs will bring on the end of world through things like climate change denying or a war started through bombing of or by a muslim state or Rick Santorum/Sarah Palin type getting into the White house.

baords dyslexic

bonniebede wrote: »

Yeah, thats what I thought, that there had to to be other preppers with a bit of a religious thing going on. Specially the mormons. but with the best will in the world I can't seem to surface any in Ireland.Most of the mormons i've met over here are Americans on mission, and i suppose reasonably enough the whole keeping a years supply of food thing only becomes something you get into after you finish your wanderjahr and settle down.

I know the stereotypical American prepper is meant to be a gun toting bible chomping nut, who thinks the republicans are a bunch of pinko commies; there are so few preppers in ireland there doesn't seem to be enough to develop a stereotype! Anyway, we all know that that american stereotype doesn't take into account the eminently reasonable and rational nature of preparedness as a timewaster obsession hobby good way to spend an afternoon.

never mind. it was just a thought.

There are other religions in Ireland (and around the world) that have recommended some form of prepping but not because of an EOTWAWKI situation but because of the recent world disasters - its just common sense really. They may not be publishing the info if they don't want people to think they are predicting the EOTWAWKI when thats not their intention.

Look at it another way if you are expecting the world to end in Armagedon and you believe you are going to be "saved" then preping with a years supply of food is saying to your god that he can't look after you and where is the faith in that

Doc Ruby

A couple of things, I posted a thread a while back about the will to survive, I think in some cases religious beliefs can definetely contribute to one's chances of survival in terms of keeping going. That's not unique to religion, it could be the desire to see one's family again, or just plain stubborness. Whatever it takes and wherever that strength comes from, it can be a real plus.

My own peculiar spiritual (not religious) beliefs would more lend themselves to the sense of wonder I get while out in the back country observing everything going on around me, the great mad jig that is nature.

I don't think the end of the world will be coming anytime soon, but it doesn't have to really. All it needs to be is the end of the world for me. This is especially relevant for someone who deliberately puts themselves into faraway places where there may not even be phone coverage, and help is a long way off, especially if going for more than a few days. A lot can happen in a few days! Preparing food supplies, outdoor skills, and mental positivity is all part of the same game, it doubles as insurance for those times when its irrelevant whether or not the insurance companies will pay up.

Also for me there's a large element of being able to help the people around me if I need to, even the ones that haven't had the foresight to prepare for highly unusual events, although that goes dead against the survivalist manual. Meh, if worst comes to the worst I'm fairly confident I can feed myself regardless, anything after that is a bonus.

Anyway, yeah religion can really help as long as we're not raising altars with blood gutters or anything.

Grizzly 45

Whatever gets you through the night...:)

bonniebede

@Doc ruby

I've noticed more than a smidgeon of altruism in your posts over the months. And also the conflict with the 'I will survive' theme tune of the site. How do you make a rational argument for altruism?

I can see the argument that we will really only survive as part of a community. Any onther thoughts?

bonniebede

baords dyslexic wrote: »

Look at it another way if you are expecting the world to end in Armagedon and you believe you are going to be "saved" then preping with a years supply of food is saying to your god that he can't look after you and where is the faith in that

Not if the the end of the world (whether personal or collective) includes accounting for your actions. (and that reckoning having something to do with the quality of life on the other side)

That would include answering for whether you took care of yourself and your family, and were prudent in the use of resources.

Doc Ruby

bonniebede wrote: »

I've noticed more than a smidgeon of altruism in your posts over the months. And also the conflict with the 'I will survive' theme tune of the site. How do you make a rational argument for altruism?

The question is how can you not make an argument for altruism, really. Humans are social creatures by nature, the myth of the lone wolf is largely just that, a myth.

Throughout history the best organised, the best connected have been the ones to succeed, whether that was the Romans or Genghis Khan's Golden Horde. Not the most altruistic examples I'll admit, but the fact is that the path to success is through co-operation as a group.

The "last survivor" is great till he breaks a leg and needs someone to prop him up so he can walk. Altruism is probably the best survival instinct there is. Of course that needs to be leavened with reason as well, but people aren't just resource drains, they are producers for the most part, and quite capable of picking up new skills as needed.

FrostyJack

If it is the end of the World, it is the end of the World, all the tinned foods in the World will not save you. If it is any but you need community to survive, a few pot vegetables in the back garden will not last you a few months, so you will have to rely on others. Some form of altruism is required to survive. There is no realistic long term survival in a populated area without group help.

Tabnabs

Or to go at it from another perspective,

Young and alone on a long road,
Once I lost my way:
Rich I felt when I found another;
Man rejoices in man,

A kind word need not cost much,
The price of praise can be cheap:
With half a loaf and an empty cup
I found myself a friend,

Hávamál

bonniebede

Okay, so ones best chance of survival is as part of a group, agreed.

Not everyone, but enough of a group with enough skills to survive and defend.

Some survival scenarios (massive population loss thorugh plague) would have more resources available than the small group of survivors could need.

But what about something which suddenly reduces resources but leaves the population intact. There's going to be a huge die off.

What do you do? Who do you select? How do you get a group to select you? How do you manage between being a community builder and excluding others? I guess I'm asking if you have considered triage criteria...

Is there a personality problem in that the 'lone wolf' might be a survivor during the bad times... but then will not be a community builder in the aftermath?

Doc Ruby

bonniebede wrote: »

What do you do? Who do you select? How do you get a group to select you? How do you manage between being a community builder and excluding others? I guess I'm asking if you have considered triage criteria...

If you managed to get yourself in a position of authority before a collapse happened, there would presumably be some sort of protocol to follow. If not, well do what you can according to what's most important to you, family, friends, neighbours, its up to each person individually. Once things are a bit more stable then the door can be widened further.

Above and beyond that I'd go out of my way to put a stop to acts of predation and the like as well, but obviously you can't save the world, which is why I qualified it as "within reason" above.

Also something to keep in mind is if you just start shooting down hungry people, some of the survivors might come back afterwards and return the favour. Compassion even in the harshest situations goes a long way.

bonniebede wrote: »

Is there a personality problem in that the 'lone wolf' might be a survivor during the bad times... but then will not be a community builder in the aftermath?

Ask yourself this though - who are the lone wolves today? I guess in the US it might be survivalists sometimes, but here there isn't such a culture, really. I doubt many of the posters on this forum are hunkered down in a bunker counting brass!

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Above and beyond that I'd go out of my way to put a stop to acts of predation and the like as well, but obviously you can't save the world, which is why I qualified it as "within reason" above.

Also something to keep in mind is if you just start shooting down hungry people, some of the survivors might come back afterwards and return the favour. Compassion even in the harshest situations goes a long way.

While compassion is laudable,you are going to have to ask yourself where does it stop before it starts taking you and yours over??The best scenario I ever saw of this was on the Simpsons[You can learn alot about life from them!:D] in an episode called "Barts comet"
Ned Flanders in good christian tradition allows all of Springfield into his bunker to survive an oncoming comet,in the end the place is overrun,and Ned and family are booted out of their own bunker!!
Simply put if it is a serious TEOTWAWKI situation, all bets will be off,and even if you have enough supplies to share for a limited time,whats to say somone doesnt demand and take by force ALL of your stuff.People will start acting very weird when they are under stress,and I'd be reluctant to let anyone know I have more than enough of anything to share.Its too risky.

Ask yourself this though - who are the lone wolves today

?

Me!:D...But seriously,lone wolves is a rather vauge term.If you dont subscribe to the norms and norm belifs of society,does that make you one??In which case just by us posting here we all are lone wolves.

I guess in the US it might be survivalists sometimes, but here there isn't such a culture, really. I doubt many of the posters on this forum are hunkered down in a bunker counting brass!

{sound of large amount of empty brass being hastily shovelled off Grizzlys desk}
Well as such it isnt a culture either,nor do I think you will actually find a lot of "Burt Gummer" types contary to US and world media assertions .:D
Unless they are in some kind of criminal or religious group posing as "survivalists.," like Aryan nations or the KKK or peoples temple.

I think more independant and self reliant chacters would fit the bill rather than lone wolves.

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Simply put if it is a serious TEOTWAWKI situation, all bets will be off,and even if you have enough supplies to share for a limited time

Well BB outlined one specific scenario where such decisions might have to be taken, the deficit of food or other essential supplies and the consequent maddened crowds. In every other TEOTWAWKI scenario you have on the contrary a wild surplus of neccessities.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

whats to say somone doesnt demand and take by force ALL of your stuff.

Cut an intimidating figure. There are many other means of crowd control, but I find that is the most direct and likely to avoid conflict regardless of the environment, whether walking down a bad neighbourhood or sashaying through a foreign country. The deliberately sinister black clad muscular dude is the one you don't really want to mess around with. Don't actually be sinister mind you, just exude that atmosphere.

Keep in mind that hunger or need aren't capital crimes.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Me!:D...But seriously,lone wolves is a rather vauge term.If you dont subscribe to the norms and norm belifs of society,does that make you one??In which case just by us posting here we all are lone wolves.

Well, my point is that even the lonest of lone wolves knows full well how to interact with social structures, there just isn't much room in our society for true loners. If push comes to shove, they will be reminded of the lessons of community.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I think more independant and self reliant chacters would fit the bill rather than lone wolves.

Now these there will always be room for, and indeed respect.

Doc Ruby

Two more thoughts - lets say the trouble doesn't last as long as you thought it would, a week later and the lights are back on, food is rolling again, civilisation is back on track, and you've just gunned down several innocent people. I wouldn't give long odds for your chances in a court of law.

The only other option is that the trouble lasts a lot longer and society is reduced to a shadow of its former self. It will still be society, things always ultimately reach equilibrium, and you'll be the shunned old man on the hill with blood all over his precious food.

Whats the point in surviving if you lose your humanity in the process? I'd rather go down in the company of my fellow man than be the king of an empty world.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Well BB outlined one specific scenario where such decisions might have to be taken, the deficit of food or other essential supplies and the consequent maddened crowds. In every other TEOTWAWKI scenario you have on the contrary a wild surplus of neccessities.

Cut an intimidating figure. There are many other means of crowd control, but I find that is the most direct and likely to avoid conflict regardless of the environment, whether walking down a bad neighbourhood or sashaying through a foreign country. The deliberately sinister black clad muscular dude is the one you don't really want to mess around with. Don't actually be sinister mind you, just exude that atmosphere.

MMM..Agree with you up to a point on that one.It will work in shall we say normal times by you in a bad neighbourhood or out foreign,but it is a bluff that can be called very easily too and you had better have the smarts to know when to avoid it going out of control completely.Better is IMHO not to be noticed at all and not attract any attention to yourself.As the saying goes if you pull a knife or a gun in a fight you had better be prepared to use it,because if you are just bluffing you will be dead very quickly,and that can happen with the menaceing bluff too.

Keep in mind that hunger or need aren't capital crimes

.
Indeed they arent.But theft and use of force to saite those two needs might be one day.

Well, my point is that even the lonest of lone wolves knows full well how to interact with social structures, there just isn't much room in our society for true loners. If push comes to shove, they will be reminded of the lessons of community.

Well if they are true loners,they really wont have much time for society pre or post crunch time.As they have proably have issues with it anyway and are avoiding interaction with communities or groups to the bareest minimum.

Now these there will always be room for, and indeed respect.[/

Which is also one reason why the true ideal of a survivalist community as we or Hollywood imagines it would be wont iMO ever exist as people who are survivalists are too strong and independtly willed to be orderd around under a fellow survivalist leadership.Its the entire strength and weakness of the movement the independant streak in people.

Two more thoughts - lets say the trouble doesn't last as long as you thought it would, a week later and the lights are back on, food is rolling again, civilisation is back on track, and you've just gunned down several innocent people. I wouldn't give long odds for your chances in a court of law.

Well thats more a statement than a thought.:)
It depends on what these "innocent people" were doing first off to attract a leathl response in the first place.Unless you have gone on a shooting spree for some reason,its hardly likely you are going to be out potting the remainder of the pouplation!You'd have to be abit more specific.

The only other option is that the trouble lasts a lot longer and society is reduced to a shadow of its former self. It will still be society, things always ultimately reach equilibrium, and you'll be the shunned old man on the hill with blood all over his precious food.

But I might also be the same as any other old guy on the hill who is down in the food que minding his own busisness and is never seen much,says much or causes problems,but seems to be able once inawhile to scrounge up some odd trade goods or find stuff for folks if they need or have somthing to trade from somwhere..Dont know where or how he gets it from,but he does,so best leave him alone as he is a useful "finder/scrounger".

Unlike the folks who were very charitable until their supplies ran out and the mob tore them apart as they belived they were still witholding supplies from them.
Thats after the local milita/police /whatever got wind of the story and cleaned them out and confiscated their stockpile of "contraband hoarded goods" for the "greater good of the community".

You really should watch The Divide .It goes into this whole thing of sharing,and how it can go badly wrong!:pac:

Whats the point in surviving if you lose your humanity in the process? I'd rather go down in the company of my fellow man than be the king of an empty world.

Thats very noble and alturistic of you.And thats where we have to differ,as I see survivalism as looking after No1 and my kith and kin first.
As no one else is going to do it either now or if things go rotten either temporarly or permantly.Maybe I've just seen to much of humanitys ugly side to belive that humanity on a group level can pul together.But thats just me.

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Better is IMHO not to be noticed at all and not attract any attention to yourself.

I thought the whole point of the operation was to better your chances above and beyond other people? Trying to vanish into a crowd with all your kit is at the very best making your odds no better than the rest, at worst painting a bullseye on your back. There are times of course when it pays divdends to not be seen, naturally.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As the saying goes if you pull a knife or a gun in a fight you had better be prepared to use it,because if you are just bluffing you will be dead very quickly,and that can happen with the menaceing bluff too.

Well that's the other side of it. In 99% of situations a good strut will get you through. For most, that's enough.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Indeed they arent.But theft and use of force to saite those two needs might be one day.

See above re acts of predation, also note the "zone of control" methodology employed quite successfully by police forces worldwide.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well if they are true loners,they really wont have much time for society pre or post crunch time.As they have proably have issues with it anyway and are avoiding interaction with communities or groups to the bareest minimum.

Doesn't matter. Even the loneliest loner must obey the law and exists as part of a wider framework of social acceptance. It's just not possible to live outside society in a world as populated as the one we have. I don't know if it was ever possible, maybe frontiersmen in the US, and even they had to come in to trade furs now and again.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

as people who are survivalists are too strong and independtly willed to be orderd around under a fellow survivalist leadership.Its the entire strength and weakness of the movement the independant streak in people.

Sadly, they will just end up being overrun by the more numerous types who know how to work together, if they want to make an issue of it.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It depends on what these "innocent people" were doing first off to attract a leathl response in the first place.Unless you have gone on a shooting spree for some reason,its hardly likely you are going to be out potting the remainder of the pouplation!You'd have to be abit more specific.

War crimes.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But I might also be the same as any other old guy on the hill who is down in the food que minding his own busisness and is never seen much,says much or causes problems,but seems to be able once inawhile to scrounge up some odd trade goods or find stuff for folks if they need or have somthing to trade from somwhere..Dont know where or how he gets it from,but he does,so best leave him alone as he is a useful "finder/scrounger".

That's not at all what I'm talking about, as I would hope was clear from my comment. People remember for a very long time.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Unlike the folks who were very charitable until their supplies ran out and the mob tore them apart as they belived they were still witholding supplies from them.
Thats after the local milita/police /whatever got wind of the story and cleaned them out and confiscated their stockpile of "contraband hoarded goods" for the "greater good of the community".

The police collecting supplies is a quite possible scenario, and the response should vary based on the degree of confidence that you have you aren't living in North Korea. However mobs don't tear apart the charitable, they tear apart the "let them eat cake" brigade.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Maybe I've just seen to much of humanitys ugly side to belive that humanity on a group level can pul together.But thats just me.

I sincerely doubt you've seen half of what humanity can serve up to be honest. Some of us have stepped over things you would never forget, no matter how much you might like to. But yes, people pull together in times of crisis, they are known for it.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I thought the whole point of the operation was to better your chances above and beyond other people? Trying to vanish into a crowd with all your kit is at the very best making your odds no better than the rest, at worst painting a bullseye on your back. There are times of course when it pays divdends to not be seen, naturally.

By preparing you are already improving your chances,and it takes preparation to do so.If you are trying to vanish as you described things have gone badly wrong in your planning anyway.

Well that's the other side of it. In 99% of situations a good strut will get you through. For most, that's enough.

Hopefully!

See above re acts of predation, also note the "zone of control" methodology employed quite successfully by police forces worldwide.

But you are NOT a police force, or military unit,and if some other group does show up who DOES know that your local group is bluffing...what then???

Doesn't matter. Even the loneliest loner must obey the law and exists as part of a wider framework of social acceptance. It's just not possible to live outside society in a world as populated as the one we have. I don't know if it was ever possible, maybe frontiersmen in the US, and even they had to come in to trade furs now and again.

Proably could be done if you are a homeless vagrant and avoid contact with any social services types and whatnot.aCtually a good few fugitives from both sides of the law have done this as a survival method for a good few years.It is still possible to fall through the cracks in different societies.

Sadly, they will just end up being overrun by the more numerous types who know how to work together, if they want to make an issue of it.

Proably,

War crimes.

Errr,a war situation is alot different to the scenario you described.
Not to mind if it is any disiplined army and not a bunch of milita thugs or irregulars.There is strict military law and protocol with dealing with atrocities to civillians usually involving military law and court martials.

That's not at all what I'm talking about, as I would hope was clear from my comment. People remember for a very long time.

Unfortunatly ,it wasnt and thats the way I interperted it.Yes people remember a long time.But will they do anything about it if it benefits them?

The police collecting supplies is a quite possible scenario, and the response should vary based on the degree of confidence that you have you aren't living in North Korea. However mobs don't tear apart the charitable, they tear apart the "let them eat cake" brigade.

But one day IF things go as bad as they may we might be living in a situation like N Korea ,and you wont have much chance to respond anyway as you will be proably at best be carted off to a re education camp or at best just shot there and then.As happened in many such delightful dictatorships.As for what mobs do and dont tear apart,they destroy everything.

I sincerely doubt you've seen half of what humanity can serve up to be honest. Some of us have stepped over things you would never forget, no matter how much you might like to. But yes, people pull together in times of crisis, they are known for it.

Well there is were we differ,and I doubt you would want to see some of the things that I've seen too.Thats my experiance of this life and I'd appreciate if you would respect that as I respect your experiances OK?

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

By preparing you are already improving your chances,and it takes preparation to do so.If you are trying to vanish as you described things have gone badly wrong in your planning anyway.

Eh you were the one talking about not being noticed. In a situation where someone is there to notice, you'd better be noticed as a hard bastard rather than another refugee.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But you are NOT a police force, or military unit,and if some other group does show up who DOES know that your local group is bluffing...what then???

I was only referring to myself. Given the opportunity the dynamics for a group scenario would be considerably different.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Proably could be done if you are a homeless vagrant and avoid contact with any social services types and whatnot.aCtually a good few fugitives from both sides of the law have done this as a survival method for a good few years.It is still possible to fall through the cracks in different societies.

Homeless vagrants are literally barely surviving. Its one of the misnomers of the idea that you just need to survive. Maybe in the short term, but the mid to long term goals should be to live.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Errr,a war situation is alot different to the scenario you described.
Not to mind if it is any disiplined army and not a bunch of milita thugs or irregulars.There is strict military law and protocol with dealing with atrocities to civillians usually involving military law and court martials.

We aren't talking about an organised war though, there are different forums for that.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But one day IF things go as bad as they may we might be living in a situation like N Korea ,and you wont have much chance to respond anyway as you will be proably at best be carted off to a re education camp or at best just shot there and then.As happened in many such delightful dictatorships.As for what mobs do and dont tear apart,they destroy everything.

That's making a lot of assumptions. Seriously a lot, regimes like the norks don't just spring out of the ether wholesale, and they don't exist outside of very well organised social structures, in which case you aren't really in a survival situation, you're in an insurgency situation.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well there is were we differ,and I doubt you would want to see some of the things that I've seen too.Thats my experiance of this life and I'd appreciate if you would respect that as I respect your experiances OK?

We won't get into a shit wallowing competition so. But people do pull together in times of crisis.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Eh you were the one talking about not being noticed. In a situation where someone is there to notice, you'd better be noticed as a hard bastard rather than another refugee.

Trouble you mightand proably will run into a harder bastard than you who is reading you as a challange straight away..Whereas if you are a "refugee" or just a face in the crowd and said hard bastard thinks you are only such there is a chance of you being left alone and if HB decides to go for you he is already at a disadvantage as he thinks you are a weak nobody,but you might be just about to knife him when he grabs for your person,as you made him out for what he was.
Its a very bad move to assume that by looks alone you know what your opponent is or what they can or cant do.Lots of "Hard Bastards" have found that out to their cost.

I was only referring to myself. Given the opportunity the dynamics for a group scenario would be considerably different.

OK

Homeless vagrants are literally barely surviving. Its one of the misnomers of the idea that you just need to survive. Maybe in the short term, but the mid to long term goals should be to live.

Well that depends on how you term live.As I said if you were a fugitive from a Mob hit and you had to live as a vagrant forawhile wouldnt be surviving to live?Survival can mean many things in many different situations.
I dunno about "barely surviving" I actually lived for three weeks in 1984 on the streets of NYC in the Summer as a homeless person when I was 18 .

Not an experiance I would like to repeat again granted.And there are a lot of people out there that need to be in hospitals or asylums as they have serious mental issues or addiction problems who cant look after themselves.
But there were plenty who were doing just fine as well.On average some of these folk were pulling appx 50 dollars a day in pan handling commutors outside Grand Central.
They werent scraggy or underfed,as they knew where to get free washes,showers and their clothes done,free dental and medical care,where to sleep indoors and pretty safly outdoors.Not to mind free grub.[I could recommend some exellent skips behind the resturants in Greenwich village!:eek:]
[DO NOT EVER go near Central Park at night,it is full of all kinds of human predators of the very nasty kind]

Granted this was in NYC in an appalingly hot Summer,and I'm sure it would be different in Dublin in the Winter,but the point is it can be done if you did need to disapper with some planning,and even the US survivalists have a term for it "off grid living".
Whole fammlies disapper every year in the US into a alt culture of avoiding society by being in it .There are thousands of Nam war vets who do live by themselves with their ghosts both in urban and rural settings and avoiud humanity,even if they are entitled to their benefit checks they refuse to take them as it lets "the man" know where they are.
It proably wont work over here as we are too small and dont really have the vast society and services the US has,although we have a rising homeless population to our eternal shame.But London possibly..Paris most definately,Amsterdam certainly!

We aren't talking about an organised war though, there are different forums for that.

Why did you mention "war crimes " then???

That's making a lot of assumptions. Seriously a lot, regimes like the norks don't just spring out of the ether wholesale, and they don't exist outside of very well organised social structures, in which case you aren't really in a survival situation, you're in an insurgency situation.

Not quite what I am saying either.And seeing we are talking a hypothetical situation of a remergeing society,assuming we are talking about here in Ireland... I think it is a fair parameter to make an assumption that a dictatorship could re emerge in some shape or form from the rubble???Even a monarchy ,or a tribal clan kingship system ?? Who knows..We are dealing with a factor of X.Only thing we do know humanity has certain traits good and bad and in certain situations the worst comes out in them.

We won't get into a shit wallowing competition so. But people do pull together in times of crisis.

I'm sure they do,but I wouldnt like to bet the farm on it either just in the hope.

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Trouble you mightand proably will run into a harder bastard than you who is reading you as a challange straight away..

You're mixing up passive and active situation control there though. Passive is say a biker who is moving along, active is getting in someone's face and escalating things in that manner. Its a well known strategy, which along with eye contact can defuse lots of problems before they begin.

It won't work for everyone of course.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whereas if you are a "refugee" or just a face in the crowd and said hard bastard thinks you are only such there is a chance of you being left alone and if HB decides to go for you he is already at a disadvantage as he thinks you are a weak nobody,but you might be just about to knife him when he grabs for your person,as you made him out for what he was.

The trick is to not let it get to that stage, and this is the thing a lot of people miss or simply don't understand.

It takes two to tango, and the body language you are using will directly affect the results of any encounter. I won't regale ye with tales of said problems, but as the saying goes the best fighter is the one who never has to fight, something which appeasement has never been successful at.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Granted this was in NYC in an appalingly hot Summer,and I'm sure it would be different in Dublin in the Winter,but the point is it can be done if you did need to disapper with some planning,and even the US survivalists have a term for it "off grid living".

Nobody deliberately becomes a vagrant, not unless they have some seriously deluded ideas about what the life involves, as you mentioned. Off the grid living usually means living independent of social supports, which isn't vagrancy, as vagrancy needs charity or at least leniency - it's more gentleman farmer without a passport.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Why did you mention "war crimes " then???

Because even soldiers under orders are not legally allowed to fire on unarmed civilians. You aren't a firing squad.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not quite what I am saying either.And seeing we are talking a hypothetical situation of a remergeing society,assuming we are talking about here in Ireland... I think it is a fair parameter to make an assumption that a dictatorship could re emerge in some shape or form from the rubble???Even a monarchy ,or a tribal clan kingship system ?? Who knows..We are dealing with a factor of X.Only thing we do know humanity has certain traits good and bad and in certain situations the worst comes out in them.

I'm hypothesising in the framework of a cooperate beneficial society emerging, or at least one no worse than what we have now. If you find yourself at violent odds with the rest of society, you're in an insurgency, which ain't in the remit of this forum.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'm sure they do,but I wouldnt like to bet the farm on it either just in the hope.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst. But no, if people turned on one another in times of crisis we'd never have survived as a species. We'd be like that extinct breed of dogs that were too aggressive to mate.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You're mixing up passive and active situation control there though. Passive is say a biker who is moving along, active is getting in someone's face and escalating things in that manner. Its a well known strategy, which along with eye contact can defuse lots of problems before they begin.

It won't work for everyone of course.

The trick is to not let it get to that stage, and this is the thing a lot of people miss or simply don't understand.

It takes two to tango, and the body language you are using will directly affect the results of any encounter. I won't regale ye with tales of said problems, but as the saying goes the best fighter is the one who never has to fight, something which appeasement has never been successful at.

Indeed and very true.However even the toughest just might have to back it up one day.It happens in nature,a dominant stag for example will be eventually challnged by a younger more aggressive stag for the right to breed and usually loses out.And its nothing to do with "appeasement " either,there are just some assholes out there that no matter what want a fight.

Nobody deliberately becomes a vagrant, not unless they have some seriously deluded ideas about what the life involves, as you mentioned. Off the grid living usually means living independent of social supports, which isn't vagrancy, as vagrancy needs charity or at least leniency - it's more gentleman farmer without a passport.

Thats abit narrow as there are myrid reasons people become derelict.Drugs,alcohol,abuse,mental issues,bankrupcy..There is a huge increase of former well to do middle class bankrupt people in the US now living in tent cities across the US,and still a load post Kathrina.They are now classified as vagrants .
Off grid living goes actually a lot deeper than that.It can go right down to disappering .There are still people living in the US wanted for draft dodging in the 1960s[Few of them living over here too in Ireland and are as Irish as you and me!] or membership of the Weathermen underground,Black Panthers etc who are classified as "off grid" Simply means they wont and cannot avail of any social services or boons and benefits of society for the fear of being traced and apprehended.There is an entire alternative society geared to off grid living in the US.
The off grid you are talking about would be classified in the US as "self reliant"people.

Because even soldiers under orders are not legally allowed to fire on unarmed civilians. You aren't a firing squad.

Point being??Or is this a strawman??

I'm hypothesising in the framework of a cooperate beneficial society emerging, or at least one no worse than what we have now. If you find yourself at violent odds with the rest of society, you're in an insurgency, which ain't in the remit of this forum.

Well first off I dont know where you are getting this insurgency thing form.Not to mind you'd have to have a death wish to start getting uppity in a dictatorship,as it is long gone the time to do anything but survive that on a day to day basis..
I'm stating a simple fact of what happens to people who are classified as "hoarders and profiteers" who live under very adverse circumstances,and considering I had two grand parents and two parents who lived through the Depression of the 1930s in the US and Weimar Germany as well lived through the 3rd Reich and its consequences and privations,I'd say Iwould have a bit of an insight on how these things go down.

And there wasnt much co operation ,help your fellow man charity either I can tell you.If people had food they kept it to themselves and fed their families first,second and all the way down the line.. When my family fled Berlin,theywere refugees with the clothes on their backs and found shelter in a farmyard in Bavaria.
She still recounts with hatred watching the farmers family stuffing themselves with farm yard produce they had hoarded and giving them sweet FA for a 12/14 hours days work on the farm as a six year old!!
Had that farmer been discoverd appx six months earlier having that much food on his farm by the German authorthies.He would have faced a execution squad there and then on his own farm under martial law by an mobile execution kommando,or the common or garden Gestapo .

So I'm sorry,I just cant really see such a nice caring society emerging from the ruins of our former civilisation after some calamity.Like to be proven wrong,but I think historically the odds arent great on this.

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Indeed and very true.However even the toughest just might have to back it up one day.It happens in nature,a dominant stag for example will be eventually challnged by a younger more aggressive stag for the right to breed and usually loses out.And its nothing to do with "appeasement " either,there are just some assholes out there that no matter what want a fight.

It would depend a lot on the situation. If you're trying to avoid authority figures a badass look probably won't get you too far. My default for difficult situations would be sinister however, and I would add not in everyday life. You wouldn't notice me if we passed in the street.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thats abit narrow as there are myrid reasons people become derelict.Drugs,alcohol,abuse,mental issues,bankrupcy..There is a huge increase of former well to do middle class bankrupt people in the US now living in tent cities across the US,and still a load post Kathrina.They are now classified as vagrants .

None of these are deliberate though, which is what I said. They didn't set out one day and say, hey, I'll become a vagrant for a few years and see what its like.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Point being??Or is this a strawman??

The point being that in the likely event you're ever called to account for your actions, it won't go well. Again I'd distinguish between this and actual acts of malicious predation.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well first off I dont know where you are getting this insurgency thing form.Not to mind you'd have to have a death wish to start getting uppity in a dictatorship,as it is long gone the time to do anything but survive that on a day to day basis..
I'm stating a simple fact of what happens to people who are classified as "hoarders and profiteers" who live under very adverse circumstances,and considering I had two grand parents and two parents who lived through the Depression of the 1930s in the US and Weimar Germany as well lived through the 3rd Reich and its consequences and privations,I'd say Iwould have a bit of an insight on how these things go down.

And there wasnt much co operation ,help your fellow man charity either I can tell you.If people had food they kept it to themselves and fed their families first,second and all the way down the line.. When my family fled Berlin,theywere refugees with the clothes on their backs and found shelter in a farmyard in Bavaria.
She still recounts with hatred watching the farmers family stuffing themselves with farm yard produce they had hoarded and giving them sweet FA for a 12/14 hours days work on the farm as a six year old!!
Had that farmer been discoverd appx six months earlier having that much food on his farm by the German authorthies.He would have faced a execution squad there and then on his own farm under martial law by an mobile execution kommando,or the common or garden Gestapo .

But sure what, my Grandmother may she rest in peace used to tell us stories of the families that would have starved if it weren't for herself and others giving them food to eat. Observers during the famine noted that "an Irishman will invite you into his hovel and give you his last potato, and tell you a joke while doing so". Yes there are mean types too, but mostly people look after one another when they can.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So I'm sorry,I just cant really see such a nice caring society emerging from the ruins of our former civilisation after some calamity.Like to be proven wrong,but I think historically the odds arent great on this.

But nice caring societies did emerge after WW2 and the Great Depression.

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

It would depend a lot on the situation. If you're trying to avoid authority figures a badass look probably won't get you too far. My default for difficult situations would be sinister however, and I would add not in everyday life. You wouldn't notice me if we passed in the street.

but what do you call a sinister look ??I'm intrigued!

The point being that in the likely event you're ever called to account for your actions, it won't go well. Again I'd distinguish between this and actual acts of malicious predation.

Why is there an immediate assumption that in the first place anyone will be immediately gunning down people post any situation?? No one SANE is going to be shooting all and sundry straight away,or at least I hope not!:eek:

But sure what, my Grandmother may she rest in peace used to tell us stories of the families that would have starved if it weren't for herself and others giving them food to eat. Observers during the famine noted that "an Irishman will invite you into his hovel and give you his last potato, and tell you a joke while doing so". Yes there are mean types too, but mostly people look after one another when they can

.

What observers were they???:rolleyes:Either they were in some Irish version of a Potemkin village or never set foot outside Dublin city and were writing for a British audience to assure them that all was well in good ol Oireland!!!
Either way,their stories must be in the minority compared to the other accounts of the Famine.

But nice caring societies did emerge after WW2 and the Great Depression

.
As well as some pretty nasty ones,which proably outnumberd the nice ones.Think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one!:)

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

but what do you call a sinister look ??I'm intrigued!

A black metal helmet and black sweeping cape, it also helps if you breathe loudly.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Why is there an immediate assumption that in the first place anyone will be immediately gunning down people post any situation?? No one SANE is going to be shooting all and sundry straight away,or at least I hope not!:eek:

I see how you qualified that with "straight away".

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What observers were they???:rolleyes:Either they were in some Irish version of a Potemkin village or never set foot outside Dublin city and were writing for a British audience to assure them that all was well in good ol Oireland!!!
Either way,their stories must be in the minority compared to the other accounts of the Famine.

European travellers, both French and German, in Ireland during the 19th century, and they had a few choice comments to make on the British as well. However that's not the point. Here's a good one for you:

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/07/nightmare-in-new-orleans

People couldn't help contrasting the catastrophes. During the first disaster, New Yorkers remained calm, cooperative, and nonviolent; the crime rate plunged, and the city was overwhelmed with spontaneous acts of mutual aid. In the second emergency, the most basic social bonds seemed to disintegrate. As Newsweek put it, "the night was alight with fires, the pavement was alive with looters."

If you compare 9/11 with Hurricane Katrina, you'll provoke protests—Osama's attacks were awful, your critics will say, but they only hit one part of Manhattan and they left most of the city's infrastructure unscathed. But the two disasters I'm describing are the New York blackouts of 1965 and 1977. The first knocked out far more of the grid than the second, but communal ties seemed to strengthen rather than fray. The latter, by contrast, set off 25 hours of arson, looting, and chaos. The most striking quote in that Newsweek piece came from a rioter in Harlem. "We made a mistake in '65," he said. "But we're going to clean up in '77."

When disaster strikes, the results usually look a lot more like '65 than '77. The civic breakdown we've seen in New Orleans is extremely atypical, not just next to smaller-scale emergencies like 9/11 but next to some of the worst natural and technological catastrophes of recent history. "In the more modern, developed countries, looting is not a problem after disasters," says the sociologist E. L. Quarantelli, a co-founder of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware and one of the pioneers of disaster research. There are "some exceptions," he adds, but they're "very rare." More than a half-century of investigation has established a fairly firm pattern: After the cataclysm, social bonds will strengthen, volunteerism will explode, violence will be rare, looting will appear only under exceptional circumstances, and the vast majority of the rescues will be accomplished by the real first responders—the victims themselves.

I think there are a lot of different elements at play in the mostly US-sourced survival handbook's recommended response to emergencies, few of which reflect well upon their authors, but the reality is as described above.

Doc Ruby

Actually I'll post the rest of that article to forestall any further protests on man's inhumanity to man.

• When an earthquake hit Tanghsan, China, in 1976, it was "probably the worst peacetime disaster of the century," Dr. Erik Auf der Heide, a medical officer with the Centers for Disease Control, writes in his contribution to the 2004 book The First 72 Hours: A Community Approach to Disaster Preparedness. About 250,000 people were killed, and almost every building in the city was destroyed—but "200,000 to 300,000 victims rescued themselves and then carried out 80% of the rescue of others." Such proportions were neither an aberration nor peculiar to earthquakes: Auf der Heide cites similar patterns following flash floods, tornadoes, and a deadly gas explosion.
• The Kobe quake of 1995, which killed 6,279 people, produced a reaction that was—to quote "Emergency Response: Lessons Learned from the Kobe Earthquake," a 1997 paper by Kathleen Tierney and James D. Goltz—"without precedent in Japanese society." Although volunteerism isn't nearly as widespread in Japan as it is in the United States, "most search and rescue was undertaken by community residents; officially-designated rescue agencies such as fire departments and the Self Defense Forces were responsible for recovering at most one quarter of those trapped in collapsed structures. Spontaneous volunteering and emergent group activity were very widespread throughout the emergency period; community residents provided a wide range of goods and services to their fellow earthquake victims, and large numbers of people traveled from other parts of the country to offer aid." Quarantelli says there wasn't a single authenticated case of looting.
• After the San Francisco quake of 1989, Stewart Brand wrote in Whole Earth Review that "Volunteer rescuers in San Francisco's Marina District...outnumbered professionals three-to-one during the critical first few hours." (Although, he added, "it still wasn't enough.") According to Auf der Heide, most of the tremor's fatalities followed the collapse of the Cypress Expressway—and the rescue operation that followed was led by self-organizing volunteers. "These volunteers, coming from residences and businesses in the neighborhood or passing by on the street and freeway, performed some of the first rescues of trapped motorists," the Oakland Fire Department acknowledged in its earthquake report. "Using makeshift ladders, ropes, and even the trees planted beside the freeway, these volunteers scrambled up onto the broken structure to render first aid and help the injured and dazed to safety."

When looting does occur, most of it is done covertly by individuals or small groups snatching something when they think no one's looking, not by mobs acting openly. According to Quarantelli, research has revealed only four American exceptions: during the blackout of '77; in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands following 1989's Hurricane Hugo; in and around Homestead, Florida, after 1992's Hurricane Andrew; and in New Orleans this year.
What happened after Hugo seemed so unusual that Quarantelli visited the island three times to investigate the chain of events. If you've been following the news from New Orleans, the variables at work in St. Croix should sound familiar.
First, "it's a tourist area, and one thing that stood out is that the tourists that come there are very wealthy while the native population is very, very poor." Second, "there's an underclass that engages in a lot of petty crime," and it includes juvenile gangs who launched the looting and "in a sense were simply acting on a larger scale than they normally do." Third, the police department was "ineffective, corrupt, and full of nepotism," and many officers joined in the larceny themselves. Put those factors together with the massive impact of the hurricane and the relative isolation of the island, and you had a recipe for riots.
Indeed, while events in New York, St. Croix, Homestead, and New Orleans differ radically from the usual behavior seen after catastrophes, they do resemble the sort of angry urban disorder that emerges not from without but from within. "In riots," says Quarantelli, "looting is overt, it's socially supported, it's engaged in by almost everyone, and also it's targeted looting, in the sense that people break into alcohol stores and drug stores and things of that kind." That, he discovered, is what happened in St. Croix; and it essentially occurred in the other three examples as well. "You could make the argument," he says of the '77 blackout, "that what happened there was less a technological disaster than simply the breakout of another riot": another Watts in another long, hot summer. The disparity between '77 and '65 reflected different social and economic conditions, just as St. Croix broke out in looting while other places battered by Hugo—Puerto Rico, the Carolinas—maintained social order.
"But even that's got to be put in context," Quarantelli concludes. "When all is said and done, while people paid attention to the looting and it certainly did occur, the pro-social behavior [in St. Croix] far outweighed the anti-social behavior." In fact, in every disaster he's studied, "the height of the emergency is when people are nicest to one another." In St. Croix, residents rescued their neighbors, gave shelter to the homeless, and shared their supplies; even the looting itself was often a matter of desperate but nonviolent citizens taking survival necessities, not gangs seizing luxury goods. (It's not even clear that it's properly theft to take, say, food that's bound to spoil before its owner can return to reclaim it.) Rumors of murders, armed robbery, and the like generally turned out to be unverified, exaggerated, or simply inaccurate.
In New Orleans there have been some genuine first-hand accounts of violent assaults, but as Matt Welch has reported in Reason, the rumor mill has been working overtime as well. Meanwhile, we're also starting to hear stories of spontaneous cooperation on the ground -- notably the heroic tales of Deamonte Love, the six-year-old boy who led five toddlers and a baby out of the flood zone, and Jabbar Gibson, the young man who commandeered an abandoned school bus, drove it to Houston with around 100 people aboard, and arrived there well in advance of the official convoy. Neighbors saved neighbors from the rising waters, volunteers patrolled their communities, and evacuees who owned vehicles gave lifts to people who didn't. Quarantelli is almost certain we'll learn that such cooperation and initiative greatly outnumbered the widely reported thefts.
There was one additional factor in Katrina that wasn't present in the other cases: what Quarantelli calls "the worst mishandled disaster I've ever seen in my life, and I've been studying disasters since 1949." The full story of what went wrong has yet to be uncovered, but it seems more and more clear that, far from working closely with volunteers and local authorities, the Department of Homeland Security—the giant new bureaucracy that absorbed the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2003—adopted a command-and-control approach that at times worked actively against the other responses. Anecdotes abound not just of well-qualified civilians being turned away from the disaster zone, but of public employees being poorly deployed, such as the 1,400 firefighters who were assigned to do community relations work. Worst of all were the squalid holding camps at the Superdome and the conference center, where authority was omnipresent but leadership was absent.
The local government clearly botched the initial evacuation of New Orleans, leaving hundred of empty buses to drown while carless citizens were stranded, but a deeper problem with the exodus might be the local initiative that was blocked. Fred Smith, the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and, more to the point, a native Louisianan who's been monitoring events there as closely as he can, asks: "There were avenues in and out of the city—people could have been enlisted to come into the city to make pickups, and the problem could have been alleviated much earlier. America has cars and boats and buses and vans, but they weren't called on. In WWI, Paris was saved because taxis rushed French troops to the front. Why couldn't New Orleans have done the same?"
The most appalling allegations come from the leftist activists Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky, who were attending a conference of emergency medical services workers in New Orleans when the hurricane struck. Their widely-circulated account is a litany both of inspiring self-organization on the ground and of astonishing official mistreatment and neglect. Among other things, they claim that a police officer broke up their embarrassingly situated encampment—it was adjacent to the command station—by lying that buses were waiting for them on the other side of the Greater New Orleans Bridge, and that armed sheriffs then blocked them from entering Mississippi on foot.
At that point, they say, some of them took direct action:

Our little encampment began to blossom. Someone stole a water delivery truck and brought it up to us. Let's hear it for looting! A mile or so down the freeway, an Army truck lost a couple of pallets of C-rations on a tight turn. We ferried the food back to our camp in shopping carts.

Now—secure with these two necessities, food and water—cooperation, community and creativity flowered. We organized a clean-up and hung garbage bags from the rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We designated a storm drain as the bathroom, and the kids built an elaborate enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken umbrellas and other scraps. We even organized a food-recycling system where individuals could swap out parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!).
This was something we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina. When individuals had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids or food for your parents. But when these basic needs were met, people began to look out for each other, working together and constructing a community.

I can't vouch for their account, but I can attest to that final point. People do look out for each other in emergencies, even when other social bonds begin to break. The best response to a disaster will embrace that. The worst will work against it.

And that last sentence is really the point I'm trying to make.

Grizzly 45

You made your point!
As I said we will have to agree to differ.
That report is also based on the US.Which also has a very different mindset to "citizenship " and "patriotism"and "charity" which us Europeans usually sneer and deride as nonsensecial American Gungho ism.

I would be intrested to see do we display the same cooperation over here in Europe,and most importantly will we display it here in the event of a major disaster??

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You made your point!
As I said we will have to agree to differ.

You can differ if you like but the facts will remain.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That report is also based on the US.

And China. And Japan, which the report notes has markedly lower levels of normal volunteerism than most places. I think its safe to say its a human trait. Except, maybe, for Germans, by your own account.

Remember this when you consider altruism in survivalism:

People do look out for each other in emergencies, even when other social bonds begin to break. The best response to a disaster will embrace that. The worst will work against it.

Grizzly 45

And China. And Japan, which the report notes has markedly lower levels of normal volunteerism than most places. I think its safe to say its a human trait. Except, maybe, for Germans, by your own account.

Well isnt that ironic then??That the nations that have high tech,high industriousness,and a serious work ethic have serious superirority complexes,[somthing we Irish tried to grow here in the Celtic tiger time]
are the least helpful to each other as individuals.

People do look out for each other in emergencies, even when other social bonds begin to break. The best response to a disaster will embrace that. The worst will work against it

You can say it as much as you like ,post reams of reports and whatever.It wont change my mind..Sorry!:D

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well isnt that ironic then??That the nations that have high tech,high industriousness,and a serious work ethic have serious superirority complexes,[somthing we Irish tried to grow here in the Celtic tiger time]
are the least helpful to each other as individuals.

Er that's not what the report said at all. It said that Japan and only Japan has traditionally low levels of volunteerism. Despite which the Japanese acted the exact same way as everyone else in an emergency and helped one another. I've no idea where you're getting the rest from.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You can say it as much as you like ,post reams of reports and whatever.It wont change my mind..Sorry!:D

Well that's your decision.

It will significantly lower your chances of surviving in a serious emergency mind you, which is what I've been trying to get across since probably day one, but its entirely up to yourself, as long as others are aware what you're saying is wrong.

bonniebede

Well gentlemen, that was all very interesting, thank you fo taking the trouble to post.

Let me take this inquiry onto a different tack.

If one presumes that something dire will happen, like the potato famine, for example, but that it may not happen to every generation, what essential skills do you make sure your kids have, (or your friends kids) and how do you go about teaching them?

Seems to me one should have a list, just like a bob, of essential skills for my descendants to have just in case....

Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby wrote: »

[will significantly lower your chances of surviving in a serious emergency mind you, which is what I've been trying to get across since probably day one, but its entirely up to yourself, as long as others are aware what you're saying is wrong.

Just so long as they understand too,that what you are claiming to the contary,mightnt happen to them either,and that there are no God given 100% certentaties in a survival situation either.

Anyways moving on...
skills and teaching your kids.Well TBH,not having any kids,or wanting any for that matter and seeing that most of my friends kids have about as much intrest in the outdoors as Kim Jong has in our household tax....
I'm out of this one!:pac:

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just so long as they understand too,that what you are claiming to the contary,mightnt happen

Its not just me claiming it, it's professionals whose job it is to know and study over many years how populations react in large scale emergencies, and it seems pretty clear to me what their conclusions are, even if they might never have watched the Simpsons.

Even if you don't manage to antagonise the people nearby into violent action against you sooner or later, the bottom line is that you're deliberately cutting yourself off from the greatest resource anyone has - the people around them, which is what I've been saying from the start. That was more my gut feeling but now I've put the effort in and researched it I'm encouraged to find I was correct.

You can make your own decisions on what you want to do of course but its not right that you broadcast ideas which will put others at risk if they try and follow them, especially those who come here to learn. These ideas have more foundation in entertainment media and the kind of paranoid delusion the US survivalist scene is rife with than reality.

I respect your skills and knowledge a lot Grizz but not accepting the realities of the world is a shortcut to becoming a statistic, we both know that, so maybe an adjustment in your plans and outlook might be in order.

bonniebede wrote: »

Well gentlemen, that was all very interesting, thank you fo taking the trouble to post.

Nice try!

bonniebede wrote: »

If one presumes that something dire will happen, like the potato famine, for example, but that it may not happen to every generation, what essential skills do you make sure your kids have, (or your friends kids) and how do you go about teaching them?

I'd say being able to live with the land and more importantly being comfortable with that is important. Planning, foresight, basic rules, it doesn't take much really. Swimming, number one with a bullet. Self defence, like Judo ground fighting combined with a more contact related sport is always a good investment. Social skills, vital, first aid, its not a long list. If you want a holiday in Eastern Europe you can always schedule some firearms training as well. How to drive everything would also be handy.

bonniebede

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

not having any kids,or wanting any for that matter and seeing that most of my friends kids have about as much intrest in the outdoors as Kim Jong has in our household tax....
I'm out of this one!:pac:

I don't have any myself, and think from a preppers point of view that is fairly disastrous, except that i have good bonds with families with, so see myself as contributing to their preparedness and survival potential, and look to reap some benefits from doing so.

You gotta love kids, they learn fast, adapt even faster, look after you in your old age, and do great on with a barbecue:D

Grizzly 45

Doc,
With all due respects ,I think you have belaboured your point now to the a point of obsession to win the arguement!!You are not 100%right either in this situation.

Quite frankly,I think it is also very dangerous for you and all these experts to suggest that from "studying" these disasters by whatever methods,proably by sitting behind a desk in a university somplace that people who come here to learn will be left with an impression that somone in authorithy or out of charity or human goodwill will help them if things go badly wrong..Unless you are in a survival situation that NONE of us can predict we might end up in be they an expert with a load of letters behind their names or humble ol me.

You will have to go with whatever happens.And to assure everyone that dont worry you can rely on your fellow mans charity and all will be well is in my humble opinion very naive.One of the rules and attributes of a survivalist is to be able to absorb information from all sides and then make an informed and if need be very tough decisions to ensure thewir own and fammlies survival.
Trying to bludegon down a differing POV by demeaning it or belittling it or your opponent is not doing the opposing POV any favours.

You are coming across that only YOUR POV on this issue is the genuine 100% correct in all situations and you boke no contradictions.That Doc is not how things work in this life!Least of all in a democracy.

.Sorry,I'm going on what I have, and my family have experianced in their history in survival situations and it contradicts 100% everything you and these reports have espoused!That is the "realities" as I see them,good bad or indifferent.
Sorry if you disagree but those are the FACTS as I see them!!Now you can try and put my POV down by belittling it and me, and going off on a tangent or being demeaning with the usual anti US survivalist smart arse comments but it doesnt change my mind or what I have experianced.

So lets just give it a rest OK?I think we have both made our points and this is not going any further,and I'm sure we are starting to bore the **** out of everyone here,again!

I don't have any myself, and think from a preppers point of view that is fairly disastrous

Why do you think that Bonnie??

Doc Ruby

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

With all due respects ,I think you have belaboured your point now to the a point of obsession to win the arguement!!

The argument was only going round in circles till I came across that report, at which point the argument was over.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Quite frankly,I think it is also very dangerous for you and all these experts to suggest that from "studying" these disasters by whatever methods,proably by sitting behind a desk in a university somplace that people who come here to learn will be left with an impression that somone in authorithy or out of charity or human goodwill will help them if things go badly wrong..Unless you are in a survival situation that NONE of us can predict we might end up in be they an expert with a load of letters behind their names or humble ol me.

Yeah that works great if you're talking about the finer manual points of carpentry or plumbing, not so much if you're talking about demonstrably observed social trends from reputable sources. It doesn't matter if researchers weren't in the riots themselves (and they may have been), they have vast quantities of reliable eyewitness accounts on hand among many other sources. There's nothing subtle about disasters, so the suede-elbowed-tweed-jacketed guy thing doesn't really fly here.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You will have to go with whatever happens.And to assure everyone that dont worry you can rely on your fellow mans charity and all will be well is in my humble opinion very naive.One of the rules and attributes of a survivalist is to be able to absorb information from all sides and then make an informed and if need be very tough decisions to ensure thewir own and fammlies survival.

But sure the report even covered that. Basically the upshot was that if you're in a severely economically deprived or normally dangerous area, it will probably get worse for a short while, in limited ways. Otherwise, people stand up and look after one another.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Trying to bludegon down a differing POV by demeaning it or belittling it or your opponent is not doing the opposing POV any favours.

See here's why we have disagreements. My preference is to work from the best available information, and when that goes contrary to the received wisdom from people like US survivalists, you take it as a personal affront. Its not. Admittedly I do shoot from the hip at times but I'm often as near the mark as makes no difference even then. There comes a point when you have to realise its not about you, but about the reality.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.Sorry,I'm going on what I have, and my family have experianced in their history in survival situations and it contradicts 100% everything you and these reports have espoused!That is the "realities" as I see them,good bad or indifferent.

You don't have the right to completely discard good solid research in favour of your opinion when peoples' lives might be on the line over it some day. Well you can, but if you start broadcasting it its only responsible to pull you up on it.

You have got bad information. My recommendation is to update your strategy based on new and better information. Do it or not, no skin off my nose.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So lets just give it a rest OK?I think we have both made our points and this is not going any further,and I'm sure we are starting to bore the **** out of everyone here,again!

Nobody's being forced to read this thread, which to my mind at least has brought us to a useful conclusion.

FrostyJack

This thread has become confusing. From my interputation of what has been said (I could be wrong), if you have a stock pile (or supply of food) it is unlikely people will take it if you look hard or because people in a crisis they stick together, Grizzly is saying you may have to use force to defend your supplies and it is better to be the grey man and stay out of the lime light (again I could be wrong). The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself. As for people coming together in tough times this is mainly true but as stated even in said reports they say "violence will be rare, looting will appear only under exceptional circumstances". This means it does happen, and to play the percentages you should expect the worst. It doesn't mean you set claymores around your house or shoot anyone who looks sideways at you but you should be aware that it is a risk.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

This thread has become confusing. From my interputation of what has been said (I could be wrong), if you have a stock pile (or supply of food) it is unlikely people will take it if you look hard or because people in a crisis they stick together, Grizzly is saying you may have to use force to defend your supplies and it is better to be the grey man and stay out of the lime light (again I could be wrong). The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself. As for people coming together in tough times this is mainly true but as stated even in said reports they say "violence will be rare, looting will appear only under exceptional circumstances". This means it does happen, and to play the percentages you should expect the worst. It doesn't mean you set claymores around your house or shoot anyone who looks sideways at you but you should be aware that it is a risk.

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

My perspective is that people will by and large help one another and support each other almost immediately, which as it turns out is the reality as supported by the research linked earlier. This then should inform one's post-cataclysm strategy, ie not sitting in a bunker.

Turns out the woolly headed optimistic view is actually right here after all. So that's why I'd advocate altruism, which was the original question.

Although of course wear a seatbelt while driving.

baords dyslexic

Me, I think altruism is great - provided my stash of food is well hidden.

Doc Ruby

baords dyslexic wrote: »

Me, I think altruism is great - provided my stash of food is well hidden.

Sure, you're not helping anyone if you starve to death yourself. Its a wider philosophical issue though that I think the stateside survivalist movement has gotten backwards.

Just on the initimidating look thing again, to illustrate what I mean, I recall reading about a well known bodybuilder who when asked why he got into bodybuilding as a skinny, lanky youth, said "I had a choice between weightlifting and learning martial arts - the difference was that while you can look after yourself with martial arts, as a weightlifter nobody comes near you in the first place". An ounce of prevention and all that. Not to say you should have the mad max outfit shrink wrapped in the boot of your 1973 XB GT Ford Falcon Coupe as part of your bug out kit, but subtle cues go a long way.

Still, no reason you can't learn martial arts too.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

To boil it down Grizz believes everyone will turn on one another and resort to biblical scale murder and violence in the event of a major catastrophe, cats and dogs living together, every man for himself, the devil take the hindmost, and has formed his philosophy on that basis.

Again I could be wrong but I don't think that is what he is trying to say.

While compassion is laudable,you are going to have to ask yourself where does it stop before it starts taking you and yours over??The best scenario I ever saw of this was on the Simpsons[You can learn alot about life from them!] in an episode called "Barts comet"
Ned Flanders in good christian tradition allows all of Springfield into his bunker to survive an oncoming comet,in the end the place is overrun,and Ned and family are booted out of their own bunker!!
Simply put if it is a serious TEOTWAWKI situation, all bets will be off,and even if you have enough supplies to share for a limited time,whats to say somone doesnt demand and take by force ALL of your stuff.People will start acting very weird when they are under stress,and I'd be reluctant to let anyone know I have more than enough of anything to share.Its too risky.

He is saying don't let everyone know you have it or eventually lose it like Ned did. This is a very real scenerio (and a good episode ), rule number 1 is not to reveal what you have, the green monster will put a bulls eye on your back and decrease your survial. He did say in a "serious TEOTWAWKI" also not the lights going out for a week. I won't put any more words in his mouth.

If you see a starving kid outside your house of course you should do what you can, but don't go out with a sack of food and give him some, he now knows you have extra food, what will do when the rest of his family come back with their hands out? You can be altruistic as long as you use your head. One answer I just thought of while typing this is to stash some supplies somewhere and leave a note where the kid can find it. This way you are not exposed and the kid is fed

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I won't put any more words in his mouth.

Its not the first time myself and Grizz have had this discussion, but I'd say the matter is fairly settled at this stage. Without looking at the context of the discussion its pointless picking out individual sentences. I have said several times that you do need to be reasonable with your altruism though.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just on the initimidating look thing again, to illustrate what I mean, I recall reading about a well known bodybuilder who when asked why he got into bodybuilding as a skinny, lanky youth, said "I had a choice between weightlifting and learning martial arts - the difference was that while you can look after yourself with martial arts, as a weightlifter nobody comes near you in the first place". An ounce of prevention and all that. Not to say you should have the mad max outfit shrink wrapped in the boot of your 1973 XB GT Ford Falcon Coupe as part of your bug out kit, but subtle cues go a long way.

I almost totally disagree with this, this is all show and no go. In a nice healthy Western society, body building is all well and good, but when food is short how do you keep up all that extra muscle. Secondly you may have to travel great distances, that is more muscle to carry and f all cardio to carry you. You rarely see body builder bodies in the likes of the special forces. Thirdly you are setting yourself up to fail, being built like Arnie means nothing if someone has a weapon of some kind, you are basically bluffing. Learning to fight is more important, even some crappy martial art like Taekwando will give you some grounding should the worst happen, but it is better again not to be in the situation were you could have to fight. Rarely anyone bothers the grey man but the poser strutting himself up the street draws attention.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

The looking hard part may do well dealing with scobes and people looking for an easy fight, but in reality a pack of hungry dogs can take down a lion, and in dire situations you will be best not to have to prove yourself.

Just a valuable resource on that topic I may start a new thread on:

At the extreme end of our jockeying for social dominance is the threat display. To inexperienced or emotionally insecure the threat display looks like the fast lane to violence. As far as they are concerned, once you get into the threat display murder and mayhem is just around the corner. Their panicked monkey brain is convinced the end of the world is near.

When in fact, threat displays are how we AVOID engaging in violence. Both within our group and with other groups.

It is only when the threat displays fail that things can become violent. Not will, but can. Threat display is a very complex subject. One that is utterly ignored by martial arts training and turned into a macho parody by most reality based self-defense groups.

I'd recommend everyone take a weekend and read that whole site top to bottom. It's chilling in many places but if you want the real inside track on violence away from fantastical movie nonsense look no further.

FrostyJack wrote: »

I almost totally disagree with this, this is all show and no go. In a nice healthy Western society, body building is all well and good, but when food is short how do you keep up all that extra muscle. Secondly you may have to travel great distances, that is more muscle to carry and f all cardio to carry you. You rarely see body builder bodies in the likes of the special forces. Thirdly you are setting yourself up to fail, being built like Arnie means nothing if someone has a weapon of some kind, you are basically bluffing. Learning to fight is more important, even some crappy martial art like Taekwando will give you some grounding should the worst happen, but it is better again not to be in the situation were you could have to fight. Rarely anyone bothers the grey man but the poser strutting himself up the street draws attention.

Tis an example to illustrate the point.

Bit more here.

Let's take this from a general idea and get more specific. No one would deny that the President of the United States is a powerful man. But, in a dark alley, a street thug would rob the President just as fast as anyone else. Whereas, a member of a motorcycle gang could walk through that same alley with impunity. The reason for this is that in the world of the mugger, the power and status signals of the biker are recognizable, the President would just be another guy in a suit.

FrostyJack

I will have a look at the site when I get a chance. Do you dress like a biker when going to the shops? Or in a suit when going up dark laneways? It is a kind of a strawman argument. What could you dress up as in Ireland that would invoke respect/fear from someone? Anyone dressed as a biker in Ireland would not invoke fear, they one look like a village people member. wear full combat bdu ? The best way to dress is like a hoodie and blend in, not stand out.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I will have a look at the site when I get a chance. Do you dress like a biker when going to the shops? Or in a suit when going up dark laneways? It is a kind of a strawman argument. What could you dress up as in Ireland that would invoke respect/fear from someone? Anyone dressed as a biker in Ireland would not invoke fear, they one look like a village people member. wear full combat bdu ? The best way to dress is like a hoodie and blend in, not stand out.

I already mentioned clearly that I would reserve this approach for serious emergency situations, and that you wouldn't remark on me if you passed me in the street normally. Also on a side note, if you had much experience with Irish bikers you'd know they are not the people with whom to fuck. Do read up on that site though, its quite illuminating in many ways.

FrostyJack

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Okay, go ahead and read that website and get back to me. Keep in mind that at no point did I advise dressing up as a biker, on the contrary I made fun of the idea. Although if you got on the wrong side of the likes of the Border Lords, who you aren't likely to find on google, you'd be singing a different tune, believe me, which to my mind means you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm referring to a purely psychological gambit which has consistently proven effective, as supported by that website you have yet to read.

FrostyJack

Doc Ruby wrote: »

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am only taking about in a serious situation too. I cannot think of anything someone could dress up as to intimidate a group in Ireland. I have lots of experience with bikers in Ireland, the vast majority are just a social group not Sons Of Anarchy. there are more badasses playing league of Ireland football than bikers yet someone in a Bohs jersey wouldn't intimidate me (except the fact they could be a northsider). If I a scumbag and I was in a gang and I saw someone dressed up like Mr T, with tons of jewelry and a tank top, I would go "don't go near that guy he looks like Mr T and he was a badass". Where as a guy going by looking like me I probably wouldnt notice. another thought to consider while dressing up, what happens if you bump into say a real biker gang. Your odds of getting hurt go up a million percent were as a civilian just could walk by.

Okay, go ahead and read that website and get back to me. Keep in mind that at no point did I advise dressing up as a biker, on the contrary I made fun of the idea. Although if you got on the wrong side of the likes of the Border Lords, who you aren't likely to find on google, you'd be singing a different tune, believe me, which to my mind means you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm referring to a purely psychological gambit which has consistently proven effective, as supported by that website you have yet to read.

I you read my post you would see I said the vast majority not there were none. Supported by a website? Im convinced. I read the home page and it read like American infomercial for an instructional self defence series. Will read further.