The Truth About Survivalism and Prepping Nobody Tells You About
Prepping for the rest of us
Clash of cultures
When considering the various outlooks many people have concerning the ongoing upheaval of the West, it's readily apparent to me that few really haven't thought through the implications of the way to prepare for it from a survivalist and prepping point of view, or if that point of view lends itself to mitigating the risk that is always associated with societal disruption on this scale.
The major problem is the clash of cultures as a result of unrestrained migration that results in people from other countries and ethnic groups coming into close proximity to the native population and their vastly differing values, religion, language, and way of life.
Historically, this has always led to war, and it's not likely to be different in the West this time around, as huge movements of people are wildly changing the demographic makeup of the West, and the native populations starting to rise up against what they consider an invasion.
There is of course legitimacy to their concerns because of the lifestyles and actions of those entering advanced countries that are literally foreign to the way people in the West have lived for generations.
It also doesn't help when those populations vote in representatives that then attack the very foundations of the West and look to turn it into the country and culture they fled in the first place.
In this article we'll look at why those that understand what is happening may be undermining the majority of people looking for ways to survive the coming clash of civilizations that could be extremely dangerous to everyone living in Western nations.
The problem with the proposed solutions
Using the idea of 'The End of the World As We Know It,' also know by its acronym - TEOTWAWKI to work from, preppers and survivalists use that as the foundation of the solutions they offer to those looking to survive a potential collapse of society.
The first problem at the macro level I see is that their assumption of a doomsday scenario is probably not how it's going to play out. I think in the inner city areas it could reach that level, but it wouldn't be a lot different than the way life is now in the high-crime areas. What I mean by that is the same violence would be part of a societal breakdown, but it would spread to a much larger group of people within that locality.
If people can't get the basic necessities of life through normal outlets like stores, they'll start to hunt for those that have it and take it from them by any means necessary.
The bottom line is this: don't live in these urban areas if it becomes apparent things are going to get worse.
Some have presented the idea that many of those living in the inner city will spill out into the surrounding areas and employ violence against those people. That may be true, but if there was a collapse of the magnitude many survivalists predict, there wouldn't be much in the way of resources available for them to cause much damage.
After all, if they don't have water or the means to get any, how far will they get before they are rendered ineffective, or even die within a few days? So the idea of there being vast mobs of huge numbers of people scattering into vulnerable areas is overrated in its effect. That's not to say there wouldn't be some of that happening; it just is not going to be to the degree the imaginary scenarios some of these survivalists create.
What most miss is if there was a collapse of the magnitude they believe, it would render almost everyone immobile. All most would have would be the available gas or electric charge in their vehicles. They could go no further than how much gas is left in their tank or charge in their electric batteries because there would be no place to fill up if things get that bad.
They would be faced with their own survival issues at the most basic levels of food and water, with water being the most important of them. If they can't find water they won't survive very long.
Not only is the assessment of the risk wrong in my opinion, but the solutions are also wrong or faulty in most cases because it's based upon far too many assumptions about the average person or family.
Assumptions of survivalists and preppers
One of the greatest weaknesses of those offering solutions to some type and degree of societal breakdown are the assumptions concerning the individual versus and family.
The majority of survivalists that write or create content to give ideas on ways to improve your chances of survival in difficult circumstances are men, and reading or viewing their content, I assume a lot of them are single.
I say that because they communicate in a way that takes very little of real life into account. They base their solutions on assumptions of perfectly healthy families that have no specific issues to deal with in regard to limitations. Also, many of them are strong individualists that think in terms of survival in those terms.
While I take no issue with many of the things they suggest for individuals that have no other responsibilities, I do take issue when they apply those same solutions to families where it would be impossible to implement them.
One of the major weaknesses is when referring to bugging out, which means having a bug out bag or bags ready if there is a need to quickly leave an area that is becoming dangerous.
What they don't mention in most cases is this: what if there are elderly members of the family that aren't able to be taken, or if taken, could be very detrimental to the survival of the family or group? Do you simply leave them behind to their fate?
How about if you have a physically disabled child or adult that can only move by using a wheelchair? Do you leave them behind?
Finally, there are a large number of autistic children or adults in many families. Do you take them along and risk their uncontrollable sounds or actions, resulting in great risk to the family or group you're traveling with?
We could go on and on with the many outliers that, when added together, represent a large portion of families. This is why many of the solutions are interesting and potentially effective, but they aren't relevant to anyone or any family unless the family itself includes no weak or needy members that have their specific issues provided for under a societal collapse. See what I mean?
The point is the solutions offered by most preppers and survivalists aren't based in reality for a large percentage of the population. The assumptions at the macro level are that everyone is mobile and won't hold back the retreat of the family or group from danger. Those assumptions are demonstrably false, as I've proved above.
What's the answer?
The more realistic and better survival solution for the majority of people that have family or extended family, is to prepare to bug-in rather than bug out.
Bug-in means to provide for the defensive and basic needs of yourself or your family where you live now. The first and most important question to ask yourself is if the threat you face - whether human, weather or disaster, is how long it's likely to last. If it's short term, then bugging out would make more sense. But since I'm focusing primarily on the doomsday scenarios many survivalists focus on, that wouldn't really apply. I only mention it so you understand that determining the level and longevity of a threat is important to your response to it, and how to prepare for each one.
With that in mind, the most important thing anyone can do is to have plenty of water on hand in case of any emergency. You can only last about three days without water. Most people can go without food for many days. For that reason water is the most important provision to store, followed by food and things associated with self-defense.
Something else to consider when thinking in terms of bugging-in is in terms of your immediate family in the area you live in. If they live near by, it would be important to have a plan that can be implemented and practically coordinated if things fall apart.
Also, what the specific needs you all have that would have to be met in a prolonged period of disruption need to be assessed. After all, the major reason for bugging-in would primarily be because it would be impossible to go it alone without leaving somebody behind.
That's why it's very important to properly and accurately assess the dangers the family faces. Under some scenarios it would be better to take your chances by running from the area of danger with some risks because of weaker or needy family members, than to stay. The point is bugging out isn't the only option in many situations, and for a large number of families, it's almost impossible to do for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Understanding the times we live in
There is no doubt the West is under great stress, and to some degree - probably within a period of 15 years or so - the close proximity of those that don't share our values, language, ethnicity or religion, will result in skirmishes, and possibly war. The probable trigger will be the violent attack on the family of someone that results in their deaths, which they decide to take action against.
Already there is enormous pressure building up from those differences, with many of them being the way immigrants deal with the issues of life - which in many cases is to use violence.
With that in mind, the best thing to do in the first place is to live among people that accept you and you get along with. That provides the greatest margin of safety over the long haul. That eliminates the vast majority of risk and danger these times present us with. This makes bugging-in not just a family event, but possibly one that includes trusted and like minded neighbors as well.
We are in a great period of transition at this time, and eventually, as it relates to the United States, there will be a break-up of the nation. America as it was and was meant to be, geographically, no longer exists. There are several distinct areas of the country that are essentially different nations already, even though are still under the authority of the U.S. government. That will start to change in the near future, and that too could be a major trigger for escalating resistance to multiculturalism and the accompanying antagonism between people groups.
Even though it's not a pleasant topic to talk about, we must understand the times we live in if we're to have a good chance to not only survive, but thrive, under difficult societal conditions.
The point in all of this is I believe the majority of answers or solutions offered by preppers and survivalists assume the health and mobility of a family that doesn't exist for millions of people. That means much of their advice, which while helpful, doesn't reflect the reality of the actual world many of us live in.
For that reason, deciding where to live and preparing to bug-in rather than bug out, in the case of a societal collapse, is more realistic and doable for most people.
Individuals with little if any connection to others, can do things differently, but if you have disabled, autistic or unhealthy/aged family members, it becomes impossible to leave them unless you decide your survival must come at the expense of theirs. Most people aren't willing to make that decision, so we must find ways to survive in the places we now live, rather than design elaborate escape routes that only the very skilled, healthy or wealthy can take advantage of.
We shouldn't be overwhelmed or discouraged by this, but rather face the reality of the world we now live in.
Choosing to live among people of good will, and then making sure you have a supply of water, food, medical supplies and adequate self-defense will ensure we have a solid chance at not only surviving the difficult times ahead, but live a real life while doing so.