Pragmatic Survivalist

Andreas' post got me thinking alright, after I penned my last post I went to bed with my head swimming in this subject. I will share a lot in this post I probably ought not share. If I ever hope to influence anyone with political thoughts I should not share what some will misunderstand to be "craziness" but to heck with all of that.

I mentioned in my last post that I was once fascinated with survivalist thought and that I have in fact made a lot of effort over the years to equip myself as a survivalist, more or less. I have to clarify all of that; then I will tell a story of how I intend to survive the bad times I foresee as a possibility. By "bad times" I mean a natural disaster forcing me to take care of my family for a few weeks up to one of the more dire scenarios listed below lasting upwards to a couple of years.

One of the numerous email newsletters I receive is from a gentleman named Bruce Beach. Bruce is the founder and driving force behind a project to build community based survival programs all over the world. His most famous work (or infamous according to Canadian "authorities") is a project called Ark II.

Bruce is a wonderful gentleman, we have conversed numerous times via email. We differ in our philosophical approach to mankind, our religious beliefs and our view of the future but my relationship over the years with him via digits has been rewarding. Sign up for his newsletter.

Bruce believes strongly in a nuclear calamity - I do not fear this as much as he but I do not discount the possibility. He believes that after the calamity mankind will be left without effective government and that communities must band together to survive and rebuild. Bruce does not welcome the calamity but he does see it as an event that will allow mankind to rebuild and correct mistakes of the past. He makes a good argument that you will survive the initial stages of a calamity.

I disagree with several points in his assessment. First, no matter how badly beaten up, government will survive any calamity, manmade or otherwise (more on that later). Second, such a calamity will not be the path to a brighter tomorrow, it would in fact hasten the march toward tyranny - imagine 9/11 response times 5000.

I agree with him that only communities can ensure the survival of most people during bad times - let's face it 99.99% of the population is incapable of being true individual survivalist. There is danger to the prepared family in this community response however. Suppose you are the only person around that prepared anything at all; suppose you have things that others want. The community could get together and "vote" to redistribute your goods. Local communities could be good or bad depending upon the character of your neighbors.

As for government in general consider this. No matter what scenario you want to go with - plague, nuclear Holocaust, peak oil theory, economic collapse or [insert anything] - the likelihood that the central government would cease to exist is minimal. Some piece of that gigantic leviathan would survive. If oil was expensive and hard to come by in the peak oil scenario - the government would still have oil. Government people would have whatever limited supplies of medicines were required to cure any disease. Some functionary would still be alive and kicking even after the most horrific nuclear scenario.

To be certain it is conceivable that government could be hampered for a time, maybe a long time. Just look at the FEMA/DHS response to Katrina - and those buffoons knew that was going to occur. Perhaps in the most extreme scenario imaginable the central government would have no real control of many areas for several months.

This does not mean that the central government would just give up and go away. To the contrary, the state of emergency and the powers the Federal Government would declare to itself would be greater than any ever considered in this land. Eventually they would come to "save you" - despite the fact that you had already survived the initial event and the traumatic after affects. Your rugged individualism would be championed in speeches but looked upon disfavorably in policy matters. You can just hear the talk now, "we have to do something about these rouge towns out there in the countryside, and what about all of those guns - they are a threat to democracy".

When I say I was a survivalist as a teen and I have made many survivalist preparations as an adult I mean that I prepare to face the bad time - the time between a world shaking event and the time that the government comes around to "save me". Now if it takes them two years to "get to us" and by that time we already have a pretty good system working they may have a problem on their hands when they come to say "we are from the government and we are here to help" - translation, we got our stuff in order and we are here to tell you we are in charge again.

Thus in my last post when I considered firearms for the survivalist, I left out one very important consideration. Suppose you and your community survive only to find two years down the road a Federal Government comes knocking, one calling itself the US Government and paying homage to The Constitution and all that but resembling say Lenin's Soviet Union - shouting "land, peace, and bread" or Hitler's German. Think it impossible? Tyranny follows disaster.

I suggest, as I have always suggested that firearms serve two purposes; to defend the individual and to thwart tyranny - with the minor ancillary purposes of hunting and sport. Surviving a major catastrophe only to submit to utter tyranny would be foolish - better to be armed and ready. If the world is to be remade after such an event - for good or bad - it will not happen without violence. You are either prepared to face that or submit to it. Keep you arms clean and your powder dry.

As a paleoconservative my philosophy is that communities are the key to everything - including surviving any potential disaster scenario. The lowest form of government is the seat of power that is best suited to help and the most deserving of loyalty in such cases (loyalty after that to God and family). In the United States the local sheriff is the highest lawman in the county (no matter who else with a badge shows up). If bad things happen we ought to be able to rely on ourselves first, then our neighbors and then our local government. My brand of politics and my political philosophy are not divorced from this concept at all.