Survivalist Forum banner

Five big myths

4K views 20 replies 18 participants last post by  dmattice 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Well, it's that guy's opinion. As soon as he decided to make blanket statements about what would happen, I knew he wasn't busting myths--he was standing up straw men so he could knock them down.

I don't consider them myths, and he certainly hasn't busted them.
 
#6 ·
It is funny that he says the "golden horde" won't head to the woods.

Then later he says that trying to lone wolf it in the cabin the woods will get you killed by "Robbers, thieves, rapists and murders..."

wait I thought you just said the bad guys won't head to the woods?



???? .... all the bad guys are solely living in the cities? .... more meth heads per square mile in the country than in the cities .... don't even get me started on Deliverance
 
#9 ·
Benson was smarter about saying that. He said not to get tied into popular beliefs and be ready for scenarios to potentially play out differently than most expect.

It wasn't a term then but Benson was preaching not to get caught up in situational bias.

All this guy did was turn old situational biases into opposites and created new ones from that.

Planning is good, but no plan survives contact with the opposition.
 
#8 ·
He applied his myth deconstruction against an economic collapse only. And localized ones at that.

His historical examples are true. But they aren't even close to being the only versions of things going drastically sideways. War and social turmoil can erupt separately from (or in concert with) economic collapse. None of his examples were nation states at risk of physical dissolution. Ultimately, all had functional governments that maintained control over their societies.

On the other hand, I can think of dozens of places where things were as bad or much worse:

Rwanda, 1990's Kurdistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Revolutionary Vietnam, Algeria, Cambodia, most of WWII Europe and East Asia, Korea 1950, Sudan, Congo, Rhodesia, Laos, Liberia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Philippines, Yugoslavia, Greece, Yemen, modern Syria, 1950's Oman, 1930's Manchuria, 1950's Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, modern Mexico, Civil War USA, 1980's Columbia, Germany 1945, Revolutionary Russia, Revolutionary China, 21st Century Iraq, etc. Just a few of many recent places where everything went totally to crap... simply from human conflict.

All experienced various flavors of oppression, conflict, civil war, dictatorship, WROL, pogroms, enslavement, starvation, military invasion, famine, water wars, ethnic persecution, genocide, pandemic, refugee populations, or other internecine conflict. Many of these places experienced localized "Golden Hordes" (if only for a finite period of time). If you lived in the path of a specific refugee stream, you'd take small comfort from knowing that such migration was not occurring elsewhere.

The author ignores other disasters significant enough to bring to fruition all the things he discounts. Massive tectonic shifts, rapid onset ice age, vulcanism, solar CME, or impacts by cosmic objects could all turn the world upside down. So could nuclear or biological warfare.

Argentina's or Zimbabwe's economic disasters are instructive examples of how things might go. But they're not ironclad models of how things must go. Every situation is unique.

Economic collapse does not necessarily equal societal collapse. He's right about that. Just wrong about discounting other possible visions (and scales) of disaster.

I found the author's arguments interesting and logical, but a bit shortsighted. Never say never.
 
#11 ·
So very true, IMO. It's why, over time, I've come to believe this: prep capabilities, not scenarios. In virtually all events you're going to need the big six: water, food, heating/cooking fuel/light, hygiene, first aid/medical, and defense. Depending on circumstances you might add a seventh, shelter, but that depends on if you're bugging in, where you're bugging in, or where you might bug out to.

If you have those six/seven things covered, you are what? About 80 or 90 percent prepared for whatever might happen to you? And it doesn't matter if we're talking about zombies, earthquake, ice storm, grid down, flooding cuts off food supplies, whatever--you're going to need those six/seven things.

I don't have any idea what's going to happen. Hopefully nothing, but every time I start to think I might have a clue, I see some event, some reaction by people, that I didn't expect. The only rational response, IMO, given that we cannot know what will happen, is to prepare generally, not specifically.

And, of course, that doesn't preclude specific preparedness goals, such as if you're in hurricane alley, you prep shutters for your windows, if you're in tornado alley, you put in a storm shelter. But regardless of specific, credible local threats, you'll still need the big six.
 
#13 ·
IMO... probably the hardest to prep for, is a long slow demise of family values, the economy, morals, this country, & etc. that we've witnessed over the last decade... if nothing happens rapidly, where are we going to be in 10 more years, if we continue to slide at the same or slightly accelerated rate...

how does one fully prep for that...

best guess is keep on keeping on, & make changes as things get worse enough, that you feel you need to bolster your preps in those areas
 
#16 ·
I'm glad you brought that up.
One of the guidelines for my prepping has been with retirement in mind. I almost have all of "the stuff" I need in the way of tools, machinery, most clothing and various other household devices to take me through the next 20 - 30 years with minimal expenditures. I have a basement stocked with nearly two of everything. This way the drain will be minimal on retirement funds.

"The microwave died!"
"Go to the basement and get another one.":cool:

I figure the stuff is not going to go down in price, so I might as well get it now.
 
#14 ·
IMO why not focus on the thing that I thought he got right. Find a small community and 5-10 acres and start homesteading alongside neighbors doing pretty much the same thing. That gives the best chance to survive more scenarios unless he is right about government taking your foodstuffs for the city folks.

Even that scenario is flawed. Unless there are loads of cheap energy, farms will not be able to feed cities at their present population levels. Most likely these homesteads and farms will only produce enough to support the organizational structure needed to keep law and order. And a big part of that will be keeping people where they are at. City folk in the city and country folk in the country.

If the government were to do that (confiscate/take) unless they are stupid they leave enough for farmers needs. As a by product they would also offer a level of protection. It is not the outcome we usually plan for but in a wide scale and prolonged disaster that is what I believe happens. Travel will be restricted and people will be left where they are most skilled.

I wonder though what the outcome is for those in the middle, neither city nor country. I image there will be pockets of hell and pockets of near normality and in all three locations, cities, suburbs, and country. The people with power and money now will have it then just not at the same levels.

I guess after reading what I've wrote it boils down to there is no one size fits all.
 
#15 ·
IMO why not focus on the thing that I thought he got right. Find a small community and 5-10 acres and start homesteading alongside neighbors doing pretty much the same thing. That gives the best chance to survive more scenarios unless he is right about government taking your foodstuffs for the city folks.

Even that scenario is flawed. Unless there are loads of cheap energy, farms will not be able to feed cities at their present population levels. Most likely these homesteads and farms will only produce enough to support the organizational structure needed to keep law and order. And a big part of that will be keeping people where they are at. City folk in the city and country folk in the country.

If the government were to do that (confiscate/take) unless they are stupid they leave enough for farmers needs. As a by product they would also offer a level of protection. It is not the outcome we usually plan for but in a wide scale and prolonged disaster that is what I believe happens. Travel will be restricted and people will be left where they are most skilled.

I wonder though what the outcome is for those in the middle, neither city nor country. I image there will be pockets of hell and pockets of near normality and in all three locations, cities, suburbs, and country. The people with power and money now will have it then just not at the same levels.

I guess after reading what I've wrote it boils down to there is no one size fits all.
I don't know of any "prepper towns"... So what your promoting here is moving to a place of want? 100? 500? People who:
-aren't onboard with yor agenda
-have their own agenda
-owe you little or nothing
-won't keep OPSEC
-have grudges, scores to settle, addictions, Specialised medical needs, criminal background, etc
-eat

You got food for 500?
A police force?
Means to force that on everyone? (they won't go along with what you want)
Means to fight off anyone coming for what could be called a "target"


I know that the "small community" is a much touted course of action, but to be frank, it only works if your lucky AND 2 factors are met:

1. You were born there/"belong" (and there's no "hatfields and Mcoys" situation)
2. You live in a different time than today... Where people live a different lifestyle than the "just in time" lifestyle and (this is important) EVERYONE home cans, stocks months of food, etc....
 
#18 ·
I agree totally with SOME of what he said, but as usual when dealing with the OTHER end of this extreme, he did not consider the multitude of factors that can affect the sorts of "myths" he is talking about.

The type of the event is a huge factor, as is whether or not it came by surprise or slowly built up.

I too am a big advocate of what he called "hunkering down" over bugging out, but I also accept there are some types of events where bugging out will be the only acceptable way to survive.

In addition, there is a big difference between TEOTWAWKI and SHTF events when we talk about how people will react.

All in all, I found it the usual "opinion piece" of limited scope and even less use.
 
#19 ·
The author of the linked article is MD Creekmore. He has been offering the same, simple, down to earth suggestions for at least a decade.

He suggests a very different lifestyle than many practice here. This lifestyle has been proven over time and is not likely to cause "Buyers Remorse" unless you simply can not stand the small town, rural life.

Personally, I find his comments refreshing.
 
#21 ·
Seems very plausible, the info in this article. I am a hunker down kind of guy at the moment, since I don't have a close by stocked secluded piece to run to. We are suburbanites with neighbors closer than I'd like all around. But we can not give up the convenience and ease this housing gives us in our modern day lives. Some day I would like to have a nice retreat 15 minutes or so out from our house to go just in case the SHTF. But for now some subtle home fortifications and preps will do.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top