What's cool in the GTIA Portfolio...

I Just Dropped in to See What Condition My Transition Was in: Part III - Rejecting Survivalists?

In Part II - Context, I wondered whether there were distinct cultural differences we needed to pay attention to, between the UK and the US. In this post, I spell out one of them that I see as pertaining directly to the Peak Oil community: the perspective on ‘Survivalism’ as a philosophy.

I had initially thought it was just a matter of personal prejudice on Rob Hopkins part, when I disagreed with him so vehemently in his September 4, 2006 piece entitled: “Why Survivalists Have Got It All Wrong.” He displayed pictures of pseudo-cavemen, and made reference to selfish survivalists hording lifeboats on the Titanic and an “every man for himself” behavior in a house fire. He was responding to Zach Nowak’s piece that had earlier posted in Energy Bulletin. He wrote:



“I have very little time for the survivalist response to peak oil…”



I couldn’t imagine how he could so easily dismiss such a large group of people who were not only savvy about Peak Oil, but were also, in my community, among some of the most active members of our sustainability group.

My response:



“I read what you wrote with interest, but I’m afraid your photos and tone might be undercutting your message. It may be easier to stereotype and point to extremes in a community than it is to look more carefully at what wisdom their philosophy might offer to all of us. If we are interested in building community, we may need everybody, including those who have chosen to keep the basic arts of preparing for difficult times a living, breathing art form. These same people teach others how to hunt or butcher or breed animals; how to can or grow or harvest food; how to weave or sew or preserve fabric. While we may not choose to do all of these things, a move toward greater self-sufficiency might be the unifying message we can all embrace. Survivalism, in its more moderate form, is also social commentary that requires the adherents to “walk their talk.” When we teach our children at home, it is commentary on a loss of faith in public education. When we choose to grow our own food, it is because what is sold as ‘food,’ is often tasteless and lacks nutrition. When we slaughter our own animals, it is because we know they haven’t eaten hormones and chemicals, have been raised with care, and slaughtered gratefully.

There is also an implicitly political message in making a caricature of the “survivalist,” as it suggests that there is nothing in our environment that we need to adapt to and “survive.” If we embrace any notion of having to “power down,” we may want to consider a different message.

Such ridicule isn’t deserved by many people I could label ‘survivalists.’ A true survivalist has gone into that ‘dark night’ and realizes that the notion of isolation is an absurd one.

One final point: when the fire breaks out, the true survivalist has already taught their families to prepare for it, which exits to use for escape and to crawl, not walk to them if the smoke is heavy. And also, I doubt you’d get most survivalists to buy the notion of an “unsinkable” ship. The best would have taught their families to swim, and what to do in the event that there was no room on the lifeboats. That event happened because of a lack of planning. I doubt a ‘survivalist’ was to blame.”


What Survivalists Got RIGHT
The Transition Handbook has a chapter highlighting Post Petroleum Stress Disorder. Here Rob mentions the “irrational grasping at unfeasible solutions.” Also included is a single paragraph that continues to create a caricature of nihilists and survivalists. Hopkins drags out stereotyped examples designed to ridicule these movements, suggesting that, unlike his own, they have no real contribution to make. As I mentioned in my response to his article, my experience is distinctly different. Far from having nothing to contribute, many people in these movements strongly embrace not only the need for community, but offer preparedness skills, insightful, and valid criticisms of our culture, and its predicament. It was difficult for me to understand, then, why in a book filled with encouragement to reach out to the widest possible audience and teach tolerance in community-building, he would stereotype and reject potential allies, who shared his concerns. In addition, overlapping communities with some differences appeared to me to make a movement MORE resilient, not less. It was disappointing to read.

I also wondered why he would be so hostile to the very same folks who will be some of our most skilled community members in the future. Why a parody promoting intolerance for those who “think differently?” Was the goal to “brand” TI as a more “mainstream” movement that’s “not like them?” At the time, I saw such derisiveness as mean-spirited, and marginalizing the dedicated efforts of those who identify themselves in this way.

I’ve come to look upon this as yet another cultural difference.


Fighting off Invaders with a Shake of the Fist!
While I could find dozens of US sites that covered many different perspectives on Survivalism, I could find only one UK site devoted to the same theme. In one of them, a humorous response by one reader was this:


“In the event of the world turning upside down, I think most folk in the UK will dig trenches behind their privet hedges and be prepared to fight off invaders with a shake of the fist and a harsh letter to The Times...failing that, Capt. Mannering and his brave brigade will restore order and justice from GCHQ at Walmington-on-Sea ...as long as we have tea, we will prevail!! “


Capt. Mannering is a character from a popular British sit-com about a military official who keeps order in the UK during WWII.

The only other item about “Survivalism” in the UK, spoke of a 1975-1977 TV series, about a small band of survivors who emerged from a pandemic that wiped out more than 95% of the population. In sharp contrast to our own more recent gun-toting holocaust TV series “Jericho,” the protagonist here, Abby Grant, and her ad hoc group, remained reluctant to arm themselves, even after being confronted by armed adversaries on numerous occasions.

Guns have traditionally been shunned in the UK, and even police did not carry them until recently. One person attributed the spread of hoof and mouth disease to the fact that UK vets aren’t allowed to carry guns, and therefore could not kill the animal on the spot, when they learned they were diseased. As previously mentioned, the UK has, what “is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world” while the US has some of the most lenient.

Guns and Butter
The very notion of a “survivalist” evokes a distinctly American image of the Wild West, or Appalachian folks with shot-guns in the hills with hidden moonshine stills.

This pervasive spirit of individualism, or the more poetic sentiment that “good fences make good neighbors,” is much more uniquely American. Like the automobile, that allowed us to ‘take in the wide open spaces,’ a majority of Americans believe that they have a right to own a gun. About half of the U.S. population actually live in households with guns, but there is a broad geographical difference between these folks and those who do not. The bulk of gun owners generally live in rural areas and small towns, while the strongest advocates of strict gun laws tend to live in large urban areas.

These rural areas and small towns also enable other features embraced by survivalist thinking, such as raising livestock, farming and creating root cellars. Far from being isolationist, these areas recognize the inherent need to rely on others. Our urban cousins (sometimes referred to as “city-zens”) might have less interest in these arts, given their limited space, zoning restrictions, and easy access to shopping.

Natural Disasters
In a fairly mild climate, like the UK, it is more difficult to remember that there exists in the US, and many other countries around the world, a need for preparations as protection against “the weather.” This winter, my neighbors and I were without electricity for a week or more. My preparations allowed me to have light, keep warm, and to cook hot meals from food storage for my family. We were both the givers and recipients from neighbors, of food, water, and other necessities. We checked up on those that might be facing problems. These preparations are part of our rural lifestyle. Like many of my neighbors, I have pets and livestock to care for, and can’t allow a little ice storm to threaten my life or theirs.

Many survivalists I know have become so, after they’ve lived through a variety of natural disasters or climate conditions such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, earthquakes or blizzards. Some have had to survive the more mundane problems of unemployment that required them to live off their food storage when money was in short supply. A weeks worth (or even three months worth) of preparations doesn’t make you a wacky reactionary, or anti-social when you live with such threats. It makes you sensible.

These preparations can be as simple as following Red Cross and FEMA recommendations by keeping a first aid kit, shovel, and extra clothes in the car, or maintaining a small kit of emergency supplies in the home and car, containing food, water, a space blanket and other essentials. A “bug out bag” can enable your family to preserve precious photos, medicines and a few non-electric toys, when you are forced to flee in a wild-fire. Basic skills, such as knowing how to drain your plumbing, or shut off your gas, can leave you with a home to return to, once the danger has passed.


Preparation: Community AND Individual Solutions
But still, unlike our ancestors, who simply assumed that it was smart to be skilled in basic arts such as canning, preserving, chopping wood, raising livestock, and yes, even killing an animal that posed a danger to your children, these are lost to a great many of us. They aren’t required of urban dwellers. Even those who should take an active interest in “surviving” presenting dangers often do not. They simply assume that government officials will rescue them when the worst happens. This is a decidedly “non-community” focus, that taxes the common resources of all of us. Hurricane Katrina is a teaching tale in this regard.

More worrisome, those who were well-prepared during this disaster experienced the hostile attitude Rob typifies, and were often looked upon with suspicion by relief workers, when they preferred to stay put, after the initial danger had passed. One writer believed that the relief workers assumed that these inhabitants must have stolen what they had, so rare was this notion of being “well prepared.” He believed that these officials were convinced that public shelters were automatically a better solution, than remaining in one’s home, and some homeowners reported being threatened when they refused to go.

I would like to suggest that in the US, we should be emphasizing the need for more of our neighbors to be well-prepared, rather than mocking those who are.

Beyond Cliché: Toward Embracing Commonality
I, therefore, would ask that we, here in the US, take a more sober approach to our writings and our attitudes toward those who might identify themselves as survivalists. We can begin by promoting sensible books like Kathy Harrison’s now classic “Just in Case.” Such books make basic notions of surviving a wide variety of disasters, whether you live in the city or the country, good common-sense.

The current edition of the Transition Handbook is a manual now being regarded as the blueprint for the future. Unfortunately, his prejudice against survivalists is now officially part of the TI perspective. It is unfortunate that Hopkins is incorporating this second-hand cliché of the American survivalist movement, as a truism. Having no first-hand experience of how large and diverse a community it is, he is doing a disservice to spread this bias. I attribute this to another example of how dangerous cultural blinders can be, when we seek to transplant a set of ideas from one culture to another.

American “Survivalist” movements straddle a vast array of attitudes and opinions, from deplorable notions of white supremacy, to accepted wisdom of community self-sufficiency that bear a great resemblance to the best aspects of TI. They do, however, emphasize skills, stores, and self-defense, whether on an individual or community level. “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst” could be said by a survivalist, but this does not automatically mean an individual approach. This preparation often encompasses the community; encompass notions of giving and charity, while simultaneously stressing individual responsibility.

The single most popular and widely read blog, SurvivalBlog, emphasizes the values of community, sharing knowledge, the necessity of faith, and the importance of charity, while stressing the need for “bullets, Band-Aids and beans.” It has approximately 124,000 unique visits per week, 208 million+ hits since it was founded in August of 2005. It is a growing force in the US Peak Oil movement, and might be the dominant paradigm currently having a far greater number of adherents in the US, than the TI movement.

We can all have a good laugh pointing out their “folly,” or we can be sincere in investigating where we share common ground. The choice is ours.

Views: 16

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sandi Brockway on February 9, 2009 at 1:08am
I just read this article about Obama, and I felt like the communication breakdown we are having here is similar to the problem he faced by bringing up the same issue. Did you too get angry with Obama for this subject? I suspect you did.

Again, clarify your terms, Kathy. American Survivalist or survivalism? Even wikepedia, who you quote, says there is a difference.

I feel that Rob does not need to apologize to you. Why should he? He clearly told you as I did - that he absolutely was NOT talking about people who possessed pre-industrial and frontier skills.

Consider your projections and stereotyping (and i have only read a smidgen of your stuff):

You say you are getting slandered, but ...

You blame Brits for the spread of hoof and mouth disease because they did not carry guns like smart Americans do. Ludicrous. You lost me there, big time. You try to paint a picture of Survivalists being the big heroes of Katrina. Having run a Katrina support site, and followed every second night and day of the event and its people, i really could make no sense of your fabrication. I was stunned. Then, the moonshiners as a stereotype was perhaps the furthest thing from anyone's mind. I do not ever remember Survivalists being painted as moonshiners - but you suggest so. When did this happen?

You are accusing people of the most ludicrous stereotyping (while doing it yourself)when you know for a fact the sort of SURVIVALIST Rob was talking about. Then you start labeling people SURVIVALISTS that are not the Survivalists that Rob was talking about. You should apologize to him.

What scares me most is that there are people who, as you seem to be, more afraid of words than guns. Why are guns so important to you? That is the question here. Why is what I say interpreted as HATRED by you, rather than pure blunt honesty? So, shoot the messenger, Kathy. Now you are so scared of me you are asking everyone to ban and marginalize my voice. Next, will you get out the guns and ammunition:?

I will tell everybody here what is REAL. There is a REAL concern about what Americans are going to do with 100 million registered handguns, and god knows how many other guns (not to mention a worldwide nuclear arsonal). Are they going to be riding in on horseback in gangs pillaging farmers during harvest time? What are people with handguns PREPARED and trained to do? Does the trained Survivalist then, shoot first ask questions later. What worries me the most, though, are people who are more afraid of words, than they are of guns. There are people on these boards and the movement who are genuinely concerned about all the guns.

Until then, the only people I accept as having appropriate survivalism skills are the Amish or the Freegans -- and hundred different others who are not paramilitary or religious paranoids. I asked you to please share with us those groups and communities who are Survivalists who are not paramilitary or religious paranoids, yet you have not been able to do that. Yet, you suggested that maybe all your warm, cuddly and cozy feelings and experiences are with such people, but you do not specify.

Gandhi suggests we become the vision. He never carried a gun or promoted the use of guns. If you want to promote the people with guns, fine, but i will not. You are right, SILENCE IS CONSENT. You can put a gun to my head, but I will not shut up. But you will never ever see me promoting guns or using one, ever.
Permalink Reply by Sandi Brockway on February 9, 2009 at 1:32am
Oh, and the PROCRASTINATION you mention is completely out of context and unrelated to this thread or survivalism. It was relevant to Rob's thread, not here. You are hard to follow. Most of this is unclear. If HER is me, i never said reactionary nay sayers, or most of the stuff you quote here. Reactionary nay sayers are usually people who deny there will be any energy issues. "Cultural Revolution" ugh? A cultural revolution just elected Obama, the man who made fun of your paranoid guns and god people. Obama and Rob seem to be on the same page.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 5:59am
Survivalblog.com is by far the most popular American Survivalist website. it's founder, John Wesley Rawles is a Christian who emphasizes Charity, abhors racism, promotes community building, and acquiring skills. he is as horrified as you are that in the event of a social collapse there will be a large number of people who will have guns and evil intention. His attitude towards guns is that they are tools of self defense that should be used for self protection and with restraint. Kathy mentioned his blog at the end of her piece. Had you bothered to explore this link, you would as you put it "been humbled". Did you even bother to look at it?
But then again, you admit that you haven't read much of Kathy's stuff.
I believe that if we are facing accelerated social collapse, we will not "imagineer" our way out of it so easily. Pushing tired stereotypes of "survivalists" is not helpful to the TI movement. And I agree that you diatribes against survivalism have gotten so over the top that Rob does need to weigh in. It is hateful. It is mean. it is, most importantly, unwise.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:29am
Her are some comments by Rawles the leading figure among the "paranoid guns and God people":
On "Heading for the HIlls"
I believe that my responsibility begins with my immediate family and expands in successive rings to supporting my immediate neighborhood and church, to my community, and beyond, as resources allow. In short, my philosophy is to "give until it hurts" in times of disaster.
On "Guns"
Show Restraint, But Always Have Recourse to Lethal Force. My father often told me, "It is better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun, and not have it." I urge readers to use less than lethal means when safe and practicable, but at times there is not a satisfactory substitute for well-aimed lead going down range at high velocity
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:30am
On Morality:
There are Moral Absolutes. The foundational morality of the civilized world is best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Moral relativism and secular humanism are slippery slopes. The terminal moraine at the base of these slopes is a rubble pile consisting of either despotism and pillage, or anarchy and the depths of depravity. I believe that it takes both faith and friends to survive perilous times.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:32am
And on one of your favorite topics Racism

Racism Ignores Reason. People should be judged as individuals. Anyone that makes blanket statements about other races is ignorant that there are both good and bad individuals in all groups. I have accepted The Great Commission with sincerity. "Go forth into all nations" means exactly that: all nations. OBTW, I feel grateful that SurvivalBlog is now read in more than 100 countries. I have been given a bully pulpit, and I intend to use it for good and edifying purposes.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:33am
On Charity:
Charity is a Moral Imperative. As a Christian, I feel morally obligated to assist others that are less fortunate. Following the Old Testament laws of Tzedakah (charity and tithing), I believe that my responsibility begins with my immediate family and expands in successive rings to supporting my immediate neighborhood and church, to my community, and beyond, as resources allow. In short, my philosophy is to "give until it hurts" in times of disaster.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:37am
Visits Since 8/2005:
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter
(+/- 126,800 Unique Visits Per Week.)
208 Million+ Hits Since 8/2005

Over 100 thousand visitors per week. It is the most popular Survivalist site of its kind, and reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the majority of Americans who subscribe to its values.
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 9, 2009 at 6:47am
I feel compelled to post this here because I want us to focus on what Kathy's argument is. Are there differences? Sure there are. Rawles is far less trusting of government solutions. You won't see him applying for grants or hobnobbing with either Democrats or Republicans. He is profoundly concerned about peak oil, economic collapse,and food shortages. The only similarity he bears to Rob's stereotype is that he does believe that rural areas are safer places to build community. Well Sandi, my question to you is "Are you Humbled?"
Somehow, I doubt it. The Straw Dog of Survivalism is just too convenient. There are only about 700 people in TI -USA. There are hundreds of thousands of Survivalists of Rawles stripe in the US. You focus on the nut jobs. Why?
Permalink Reply by Sandi Brockway on February 11, 2009 at 11:46pm
Though I sincerely regret the word was hijacked and would like to see it renewed and refreshed, in the 70s we called it LOCAL SELF RELIANCE MOVEMENT, SELF SUFFICIENCY, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET and it is all still functioning today. They did not then call themselves the Survivalist movement - but Kurt Saxon named it that, then disowned and trashed anything hippie, back to landers, or passivist.

If people have been trying to redefine the bad reputation the name Survivalist has, that is not my problem or fault. As the following information from survivalists themselves reveal, the name has a history and most people don't like it. Here is an article claiming the NEW FACE OF SURVIVALISM

THE traditional face of survivalism is that of a shaggy loner in camouflage, holed up in a cabin in the wilderness and surrounded by cases of canned goods and ammunition.

So, we are certain what SURVIVALIST Rob was talking about. We are certain about the reputation Survivalists have in America since the beginning of the Cold War and Nuclear Era? Or are we still claiming ignorance and denial?

This site was started ten years ago as an effort to redefine the term Survivalist. The article regarding how SURVIVALISTS get a bad rap, should tell much. The writer claims that EVERYONE looks down on Survivalists. Given the reputation in America, I certainly understand this. But this is Australia, why would they be looked down on in Australia? just why does everyone in Australia look down on Survivalists? But, then is it right that she is trying to own the word SELF RELIANCE for the Survivalist?

All I see here is someone trying to clean up its image, reclaim it, disown its history, and redefine it - but also i see an inclination to insult Americans on behalf of Australia. But she proves that anyone can say anything they want to about survivalists, define and glorify it however they like, and she does take a huge leap of faith when she says: It is interesting that survivalists are among the strongest supporters of environmental protection causes, are at the forefront of exposing potential distastes, and are at the forefront of protecting civil and consumer rights. Will, for crying out loud again, i guess that would make me a super SURVIVALIST. Isn't that ironic? LOL. According to her questionaire, then i must be a survivalist, except I am not Australian.

IF being a survivalist today means throwing off the shackles of codependence and authoritarianism, and knowing many crafts and skills, then even i must be a survivalist. But this is not what we called it 35-40 years ago, and not even 10-15 years ago when Bo Gritz was running all over the wildness negotiating with his Neo Nazi and Patriot buddies.

Then, our Aussie Ms. loses me here: Survivalists keep the core traits alive that have allowed mankind to conquer the planet. Survivalist-type people will be the first to colonize new planets, if we ever get off our duffs and decide to do so. Survivalists are not only the embodiment of the past, they are the best hope for the future. MMmmmm. Survivalist-type people now? Then she talks as if she is reclaiming the American myth of rugged individualism and unlimited progress.

http://www.aussurvivalist.com/default.htm

There is still the HISTORICAL CONTEXT: FROM THE AMERICAN SURVIVALIST HORSE'S mouth 1980, the man who coined the phrase who we all need to blame =

WHAT IS A SURVIVALIST? by Kurt Saxon 1980

...
The January 1970 issue of MOTHER EARTH NEWS printed a comment by Gary Snyder on pollution. "The human race for the last century has allowed its production and dissemination of wastes, by-products and various chemical substances to become excessive. Pollution is directly harming the eco-system. It is also ruining the environment in every direct way for humanity itself." In the same issue, reprinting from CAVALIER, an article titled "How to Make It Your Way", they suggested escaping to communes. "So the air is full of crud and the water tastes funny and the nine-to-five is a drag. You're tired of the subway, dog crap in the streets, bumper-to-bumper traffic and plastic TV dinners. Maybe the communes--with all that fresh air, sunshine, love and home baked bread--are really into something." The communes didn't work out very well. There was an overall like mindedness but the lack of discipline and practical skills doomed most such projects from the start. Also, too many who joined communes simply wanted a secure refuge where they could smoke their dope in peace.

THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS had a great impact on the Urban Dropout movement from the time of its first publication in January 1970. They made millions aware of the possibility of finding a more pleasant environment and creating a more secure and fulfilling lifestyle.

In the early '70's Don Stevens, who sells books on self-sufficiency out of Washington state, popularized the term "retreater". The term obviously indicated one who had prepared a retreat in the boondocks to go to when city living became intolerable. There is nothing wrong with the term "retreater" when used in its proper context. But it is a buzz word to certain types. I just heard what might have been a joke about a general who had an auto accident because he ignored a "Yield" sign. "Yield" was a buzz word to him.

"Retreater" was acceptable to pacifist drop-outs of the MOTHER EARTH NEWS school of thought. But to the more aggressive person it had strong connotations of cowardice. I certainly didn't like it, since my scenario of the near future calls for aggressive measures to protect mine from all comers. A poem says "I'll build my house by the side of the road and watch the rest of the world go by." That attitude is fine for "retreaters" but what happens when part of the world turns in to loot that house by the side of the road? The pacifist drop-outs and other non-involved persons simply leave the cities with no fanfare. They don't feel the need for a label because their move is not any form of protest. Also, they don't seem aware that the people they simply don't care to live near may well be a danger to them in the future as marauders.

Unlike the back-to-the-landers, the ecologists, the retreaters and such, Survivalists are not non-involved pacifists. They are not necessarily eager to kill, either. They are simply aware that civilization is cracking up and see the possible need for desperate measures to come through with a whole skin. The social unrest of the '60's gave a great but delayed impetus to the Survivalist movement. As discontent manifested in urban rioting, clashes between militant rightists and leftists, assassinations, etc., the government threatened gun confiscation. Millions grew afraid of their government and felt trapped and helpless. As their children were bussed to black neighbourhoods, as their streets became increasingly dangerous and the quality of life lowered, they began wanting out. The weapons oriented magazines urged protest on all levels. They also detailed to their readers the government threats as well as the overall urban dissolution.

Some of them used the term "retreater" when suggesting that their readers drop out. But gun-oriented types were more likely to sit tight than leave under the stigma of "retreater". I am not suggesting that anyone put off leaving because of the term. It is just that they took a militant stand rather than retreat. In late 1975 when starting THE SURVIVOR, I coined the term "Survivalist" and used it in the first issue published in January of 1976. In THE SURVIVOR I have been urging decent people to abandon urban blight and take their loved ones to a safer environment.

...My term has been catching on and now those offended by "retreater" are quite satisfied to call themselves Survivalists and move out.
============
Again, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, SURVIVALISTS DEFINE TYPES OF SURVIVALISTS - including" -

The other half, however, can include extremist groups of the pseudo-survivalist label. Pseudo-survivalists are generally the only types mentioned by the media. They are not actually survivalists at all, and are only valuable to the media for their entertainment and shock value. These groups are usually ill-prepared for operations outside of modern society. They include the 60-70’s type "hippie communes," the polygamous partner (read: free sex) groups, the New Age religious retreats, and the more aggressive (and often militant) anti-technology "save the earth" groups. While they may be well organized as a group, the only thing they have in common with true survivalist groups is the label they’ve been given by the media.

These groups operate under a separate set of philosophies that have little to do with survival or survivalism. They wish to live outside the laws of society and/or seek to create their own. They are often concerned with building membership solely for the purpose of withdrawing from society, draining their members’ bank accounts, establishing new "profound" religions, or butting heads with the current political philosophies. They are usually anarchistic and nearly all have a flamboyant presentation. Most of them have established an "infallible" figurehead council or leader directing every aspect of their membership’s lives. They make for interesting news, but they are not survivalists.
--------------------------------------------
Then, currently they try to disown and redefine prior Cold War or other phobic or hate paramilitary survivalists but i have to remember, they are Aussies.... Aussies who do not say very nice things about Americans....plot thickens. Then she refers to a MODERN SURVIVALIST

Paramilitary (Survive-By-Force) Groups:
These groups are not, in fact, survival groups at all. They are aggressive forces completely dependent upon each other - and on the ability of other survivors to sustain them. They are neither independent in thought nor in action, but rather a successive chain of "leaders" and "followers" who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions by the simple expedient of "following orders." Their leaders are completely dependent upon their followers commitment to carrying out their orders, and their followers are completely dependent on their leaders ability to track down and successfully implement a plan of attack against other, true, survivors.

Few of these groups have the ability or desire to survive on their own. They invest their efforts in little more than guns, bunkers, and military training. Oh, yes – and uniforms. They are fraught with egotistical, paranoid, antisocial individuals from all walks of life and often display deep seated hatreds for certain races, religions, or political theories. The majority of members are ill-trained, ill-educated, underachievers who can be satisfied with a meal, a uniform, and some semblance of rank conferring power over others.

These groups will be the greatest threat to the post-catastrophe world. I suspect that 20-50% of their initial followers will desert the group in the months immediately following a major catastrophe. These "deserters" will be the semi-independent hopeful few who were mislead (by themselves, of course) into joining the group for reasons of security through superior firepower. The dregs that remain, however, will be the most brutal, aggressive, and desperate bunch to ever roam the countryside – and they will be well armed. With powerful, persuasive and moderately intelligent leadership, this remaining group could wreak havoc among other survivors.

These groups are not survivalists, they are predators. Many of the groups actually hope for a catastrophe to take place – and some may even be actively involved in creating their own catastrophes. They are borderline terrorists held in check only by the civilized majority and current military and police forces. Given the chance, they will run rampantly and violently to their own extinction – taking anyone in their way with them. The are the absolute antithesis of survivalism and the survivalist theories.

[I could NOT agree more!]
---------------
[then, they try to redefine survivalist, but in a different light than this thread has taken.....Last but not least... In australia perhaps they are a slight bit further along on this since they did not suffer the fascist patriot god gun fanatics as we did in America. might also explain the harsh criticism of americans in undertone]

Positive Action/Combined Skills Groups:
This type of group seeks to combine the best of all theories, and is the most difficult to form – not because of financial concerns or individual skills, but because of the inability of the members to accept the basic philosophies of the others. This type of group, once formed, probably stands the best chance of extended survival, as it covers the broadest range of circumstances and the skills needed to overcome them.

This group integrates primitive skills and back-to-nature members with those who have the knowledge and ability to build and sustain a more technologically advanced existence. It combines the pacifist elements with a protective corps of defense specialists, and requires a great (and difficult) degree of logical acceptance, integration, specialization and commitment among all its members. It demands that each member recognizes the value of the others to the group, and that each performs to the best of their abilities (in their specialized skills) while accepting the contribution of others to the security of the group as a whole.

The "positive action" aspect of this type of group refers to the individual members commitment to help out in whatever manner needed – regardless of their specialized skills. Survival is a labor-intensive endeavor, and each member must be willing to lend a hand - or a strong back and shoulder – wherever & whenever needed. In this day and age, these types of individuals are not easy to find.

However, having formed such a group and successfully integrated its members, this group stands the very best chance of surviving and rebuilding some semblance of civilization. They combine all of the elements necessary to forge on without having to relearn the basics of modern life and suffer through a "Dark Ages" progression to technology. If large enough, intelligent enough, and sufficiently motivated, they could conceivably build (in time) a far better world than the one we live in now. They could integrate the best of modern technology and science with the best of "natural" living – discarding the destructive and wasteful technologies & lifestyles for what they are.
----------------------

I am sort of confused over this last poster, Dan's, comment regarding Christianity, Rawles, and that Transition USA only has 700 members. It is a ludicrous comparison. This board has only existed a few months and is one board out of hundreds, is a open social board, and is a movement that started out of UK a couple of years ago. Rawles gives investment advice and appeals to Apocalyptic oriented Christians and tells us to make money and carry guns.

If my inclinations were not clear, I am Christian. Jesus never told me to carry a gun, or not to give to those less fortunate than me. But, Rawles can tell me how to invest my money and benefit from other's misfortune.
Oh, and i have lived in a very small rural community for 30 years, does that make me a suvivalist? LOL
Permalink Reply by Dan Dashnaw on February 12, 2009 at 5:42am
Why do you respond by discussing Australian Survivalists? Your arguments drift all over the place. If you want to have a discussion, it would be helpful if you stayed on the topic of self-identified contemporary American Survivalists
You will always be successful finding the survivalists you loathe on the Internet and in books. You will be far less successful finding them in your neighborhood.
Sandi, your diatribes are hateful and inaccurate. The typical contemporary American Survivalist is not a racist. "Fascist patriot god gun fanatics" really Sandi. How different is that thinking from "commie traitor hippie dope fiends"?
Do you really enjoin the Transition Initiative to encounter American Survivalists with your level of hate-filled bias? You did not address the fact that the Rawles quotes describes a belief system that does not conform to your stereotype. And you refuse to accept the simple fact that the word has been re-claimed. The survivalists who read Rawles do not make community with racists and predators. They reject them for the same reasons that you do. My argument is simple. If Rob Hopkins wants to confront paranoid isolationism, fine. Just don't label it as "survivalist". I would prefer that while we are trying to attract and persuade, we don't end up needlessly repelling and condemning.
Permalink Reply by Monica King on February 12, 2009 at 8:32am
Well! A jolly rousing good discussion I'd say with a lot of great points being made (rather ah, er, equally passionately) on ALL sides, and giving everyone a good deal to chew on and think about.

I really appreciate each of your sharings here, and think there is much to be learned by not shying away from having tough/painful discussions particularly where there is great concern, real investment and very different viewpoints. Thanks. I wish I had more to contribute re: content, but I don't - but can see that one can get a good education lurking ; )

RSS

ALL-Transition Global Search

Loading

My Personal Stuff!

Members -- Welcome the Family!

Groups -- Come on! Let's Collaborate! Join in!

TRANSITION IN ACTION SOCIAL NETWORK is a social network

© 2013   Created by Les Squires.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service