Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Originally Posted by tennesseestyx View Post
And... what the he!! makes you "think" you got ANY majority opinion???

Yes. Compared with you I am in the mainstream

Appears you have NOT lately seen ALL mainstream polls regarding the "tanking results of your socialist POTUS" or the "bottom results of ALL House/Senate representatives". THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING THE DESIRES OF MAINSTREAM AMERICA... Neither Reps or Dems!

Buy in by liberals... who gives a crap about liberals??? Let's see if the "working middle class" of America... who were once the resource... of a great Democratic Party would not like to see the jobs that existed post WW2, the 1950s, and 1960s. Pi$$ on your progressive liberalism...

We created the middle class, naturally liberals support them

You (the "we") didn't create the middle class. The "middle class" was created by the banksters... that created the jobs... that created the new middle class wealth. You "liberals" came to the working party late to suck off their tit. The only thing you created was "unionism".

Buy in by independents... Let's see if the "working middle class" of America... who were once the resource... of a great Democratic Party would not like to see the jobs that existed post WW2, the 1950s, and 1960s. Pi$$ on your progressive liberalism...

Those jobs back in the 50s and 60s. We liberals created the conditions that made them happen.

AGAIN... Liberals only sucked on the working middle class. Pimping their respective unions by promising greater wages, benefits, and pensions that ALL have disappeared.

Buy in by conservatives... Let's see if the "working middle class" of America... who were once the resource... of a great Republican Party would not like to see the jobs that existed post WW2, the 1950s, and 1960s. Pi$$ on your progressive liberalism...

I fail to see how your extremism is anything like the Republican Party prior to 2008. A lot of that type of Republican exists. They are unlikely to support your (odd) vision of America


Am I extremist? Yep, you bet. I BELONG TO NO PARTY. I only want what used to be a great America. Appears you do not and want the Socialist agenda.

YOU are the "non-starter"... Put my proposals to the American populous... And let them decide... Was it better 50 - 60 years ago in America compared to today?

As for that last part. Your personal attack against me is proof that you do not have the capacity to discuss the topic at hand.

My attack was directed to your ignorance, not you personally...

As for letting the American people decide, I have no problems with that one. Please be prepared for the fallout (aka known as people literally laughing out loud and rolling on the floor) that will be the payment for the presentation of a genuine crackpot idea.

Again, let the "80% Democratic, Republican, and Independent workers of America" decide.
 
Why do you break it up ideologically? The poor, as a demographic, probably tend to vote less and are less politically organized than any other demographic. If the poor were organized politically or had any clout whatsoever, they wouldn't be poor. "Liberal" is just a rhetorical device the Bilderbergs put on in order to get elected in predominantly urban districts.

The real teat-suckers are the military industrial complex, which has dominated our economy for about a century -- we apparently have a military budget larger than all other national military budgets combined. We are a warlike nation, non-stop wars. The too-big-to-fails, the global banking elite, the subsidized nuclear industry, etc.

Our nation desperately needs to put a check against 'disgust of the poor', or we'll end up supporting Soviet-style Stalinism. We'll leave the sacred cows all untouched -- the elite, the war-machine. And we'll starve the poor until they're dying by the millions. Time for a lot of people to turn off the vitriolic hate/talk radio and take an assessment of themselves as human beings. Any compassion there? Any following of the money trail? Or are we descending into a petty nation of bullies, picking on the weak?

The global elite, or at least the taxable American elite, really ought to be paying the lion's share of taxes. Since they own/control most real estate, markets, shares, labor, factories, etc. -- and have been increasingly centralizing/expanding their control over it -- it wouldn't make sense to tax people more who effectively have no assets at all (i.e. they're underwater, completely in debt).

We're clearly returning to serfdom, perhaps even slavery (for all).

Try to understand... 80% of Americans are the workers. Over 15% "suck on the taxpayer tit" (part of the liberal voting block). The remaining 4% pay over 60% of all revenue.

Regarding the "working 80%"... IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES "LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, OR INDEPENDENT". Their lives and their heritage and their posterity's futures are being destroyed in front of their eyes.

Put my proposals in front of that 80%... and they will ALL drop their "political name tags" for the economic security America once had...
 
I've been reading a couple of books that deal with daily life in colonial America. Those were some brutal times and many people died just trying to survive. An interesting point was that homesteads that were completely self-sufficient did not fare as well as those traded and bartered with others. The problem is that one family just can not do everything. You're going to have some crops that don't do well. There's going to be something that breaks that you can't fix. Yeah, maybe you can survive around those things. But you'll do much better if you maintain some social skills.

Personally I'm on focusing on the "prepping" and "surviving" in that list. I'll have the materials and skills to weather out the storm. And then I'll adapt to the new world. It's a mistake to become completely asocial.
 
I've been reading a couple of books that deal with daily life in colonial America. Those were some brutal times and many people died just trying to survive. An interesting point was that homesteads that were completely self-sufficient did not fare as well as those traded and bartered with others. The problem is that one family just can not do everything. You're going to have some crops that don't do well. There's going to be something that breaks that you can't fix. Yeah, maybe you can survive around those things. But you'll do much better if you maintain some social skills.

Personally I'm on focusing on the "prepping" and "surviving" in that list. I'll have the materials and skills to weather out the storm. And then I'll adapt to the new world. It's a mistake to become completely asocial.
Your point was reinforced recently when discussions were held regarding why and how colonial settlements were laid out and organized. When colonists first arrived, clearly they brought concepts with them from home, however, in a potentially hostile environment they settled in groups for mutual protection and support.

"Issued a charter in 1606 by James I, three ships carrying 144 adventurers, soldiers, and fortune hunters were sent in 1607 to establish a colony on the James River in Virginia. The ...colony prevailed, despite an appallingly high death rate. ...Large plantations were needed for tobacco cultivation...the need for more territory and population growth led to two major Indian attacks, with 347 colonists killed in 1622 and 500 killed in 1644.

http://www.answers.com/topic/colonial-settlements

347 deaths and 500 deaths as a result of 2 major Indian attacks would be, in 1622 and 1644, major 9/11-scale events - the colony started off with only 144 souls in 1607. Clearly physical security and response to attacks were high on the list of motivation for group organization.

But aside from security, colonists organized into communities to facilitate trade and social interaction. "Travel was not encouraged by good roads. The little intercourse was chiefly on horseback or by river. Taverns and inns were to be found in every village and became peculiar social centers, trading places of tales and argument. Mail was carried once a week between the principal cities."

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycoloni/dahistmc.html

Oddly enough I'm not convinced that circumstances would be that different from the 1500s and 1600s, in the aftermath of some widespread catastrophic event. Survivors would still need security, trade, and social interaction in a hostile environment.
 
Why do you break it up ideologically? The poor, as a demographic, probably tend to vote less and are less politically organized than any other demographic. If the poor were organized politically or had any clout whatsoever, they wouldn't be poor. "Liberal" is just a rhetorical device the Bilderbergs put on in order to get elected in predominantly urban districts.

Ideologically? My posts on this thread reference a time in the past when ANY person, no matter their political preference, had the opportunity to get a job and work. The "poor" had the opportunity to leave the rural homestead and move to urban areas to create a more "wealth based" life style for themselves. Today that opportunity is gone. The "Liberal" manta I apply is to those that seek to profit from the poor... And NOT the Bilderbergs or other PTB. The "poor" are better represented by the Liberal politicians than at any time in the past... BUT only to keep them poor AND dependent.

The real teat-suckers are the military industrial complex, which has dominated our economy for about a century -- we apparently have a military budget larger than all other national military budgets combined. We are a warlike nation, non-stop wars. The too-big-to-fails, the global banking elite, the subsidized nuclear industry, etc.

Agree. And if you really read my original post, number 6, that is more or less what I stated.

Our nation desperately needs to put a check against 'disgust of the poor', or we'll end up supporting Soviet-style Stalinism. We'll leave the sacred cows all untouched -- the elite, the war-machine. And we'll starve the poor until they're dying by the millions. Time for a lot of people to turn off the vitriolic hate/talk radio and take an assessment of themselves as human beings. Any compassion there? Any following of the money trail? Or are we descending into a petty nation of bullies, picking on the weak?

There is no "disgust" for the truly needy. Our disgust is focused on those that "play/use" the entitlement system to enrich themselves at the expense of the working taxpayer. And it has become an established sub-society that is purposely perpetuated by the "Liberal Elite" to keep them elected as a power base.

The global elite, or at least the taxable American elite, really ought to be paying the lion's share of taxes. Since they own/control most real estate, markets, shares, labor, factories, etc. -- and have been increasingly centralizing/expanding their control over it -- it wouldn't make sense to tax people more who effectively have no assets at all (i.e. they're underwater, completely in debt).

The global elite, or at least the taxable American elite IS paying the lion's share of taxes. DO your research! The problem is the working poor, 47% of the "workers", pay NO federal taxes! Thus, they have NO skin in the game but enjoy all the government benefits. Thus the "poor" could care less what you or I think. They are satisfied with their "poor status" caring less who picks up the tab. The Liberal Elite provided the free ride... and the "poor" WILL vote to keep their "sugar daddies" in office.

We're clearly returning to serfdom, perhaps even slavery (for all).
Give me a break. The "poor" in the US enjoy a better life and privileges than 90% of the world's population...
 
the average person in this day and age is of a different mind set than those during the depression during the depression people banded together and helped one another for the most part they also had skills to produce products for barter i dont forsee the people of today reacting the same the average mind set of todays people is you owe me i forsee those that dont perish relatively soon trying to take what they want just my opinion a little each day makes the job easier
 
I agree with the way aramchek has laid things out in an earlier post...and it may be helpful to review some historic lessons that can put things into context.
Just my opinion but I think comparing the world's largest military and economic super power to some pizz ant south american country is a mistake.

The United States GDP is twice that of any other single nation and as large or larger than the entire European Union which by the way is also struggling with serious monetary issues.

If the US, or Europe, or worse both, descend into economic chaos it will not look anything like what happened in Argentina or the former Soviet Union. Nor would the Balkans be a good comparison.. Chaos in the US or Europe would be felt everywhere around the world.

What we are potentially facing is nothing short of a global depression. One that in many ways will be far worse than the last. And don't think that a global war will pull us from its depths this time. Nuclear weapons make that option a bad one.
 
Try to understand... 80% of Americans are the workers. Over 15% "suck on the taxpayer tit" (part of the liberal voting block). The remaining 4% pay over 60% of all revenue.
I wish I thought this country truly had a "working" 80%. If we did, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I wish I thought we had 80% who even wanted to bother to work any more. Too many have willfully allowed themselves to be denegrated to socialistic panhandlers.
 
Good thread idea. I was once told by the son of an immigrant that his family all had professions and trades. When times were bad, they fell back on their trades to make up for the loss of income from their professions.
If these OWS protesters had learned a trade instead of art history or music therapy they would have a better chance at getting a job. It's pretty hard to outsource a plumbing job when someones pipes are leaking all over their floor.
 
... I think this means that effective planning MUST now involve setting up a complete homestead ...
Absolutely agree. I'm actually concerned about the possibility that we may all have to live for periods of time without the power grid that we are so dependent upon if things get *really* bad.
 
Why do you break it up ideologically? The poor, as a demographic, probably tend to vote less and are less politically organized than any other demographic. If the poor were organized politically or had any clout whatsoever, they wouldn't be poor. "Liberal" is just a rhetorical device the Bilderbergs put on in order to get elected in predominantly urban districts.
Voting will not make one rich :rolleyes: Working, saving and spending wisely will.
 
History shows that during catastrophic SHTF events people rush AWAY from homesteads and TOWARD cities.

One of the greatest skills anyone can learn is how to live in a city.

Those who are fast, light and willing to move, survive.
Those who are fixed, stocked and unwilling to move do not.

Knowing how to work together with others is key.
 
i have to ask...........history or not......why, during SHTF, would people rush toward a city and away from a homestead? if you have what you need, albeit not forever, why would you go to a city?
History has shown that when real SHTF situations occur people move toward cities because rural areas are isolated and insecure.

WWII
Rwanda
Sudan
Egypt
Afghanistan
Pakistan
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Bosnia

My wife and I were in South Africa when a family escaped from their Zim homestead to our small town with nothing more than the things they could carry. More about that here.

People tend to believe that it is best to have lots of preps & property & gear & supplies & ammo & a defensible, self-sufficient homestead to retreat to in the event of a SHTF.

Fact is, the most important element that will determine whether one will survive or perish is their FLEXIBILITY. Their ability to adapt.

Homesteads are inflexible.
 
History has shown that when real SHTF situations occur people move toward cities because rural areas are isolated and insecure.

WWII
Rwanda
Sudan
Egypt
Afghanistan
Pakistan
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Bosnia

My wife and I were in South Africa when a family escaped from their Zim homestead to our small town with nothing more than the things they could carry. More about that here.

People tend to believe that it is best to have lots of preps & property & gear & supplies & ammo & a defensible, self-sufficient homestead to retreat to in the event of a SHTF.

Fact is, the most important element that will determine whether one will survive or perish is their FLEXIBILITY. Their ability to adapt.

Homesteads are inflexible.
I agree. I think the prepper/survivalist crowd will be better off than the homesteader. The homsteader is the most obvious target for thives and robbers. A smart prepper who lives in a city is less likely to be seen as a holder of goods and food.
 
Good post, however I cringe to think of those without an agricultural background trying to become 'homesteaders'.
Having grown up on a farm and having raised both livestock and a wide variety of crops I can tell you it isn't easy.

I have seen many individuals move into the countryside to live the country lifestyle only to see them either: go broke, sell at a loss because they don't realize the amount of work required, or leave because they become a nuisance to both the neighborhood and the environment - ie weeds / unproductive land / dead livestock.

You can learn a lot about something by reading about it, but trust me - its not as easy as it looks. If you have never farmed before - start small and work up. Otherwise you'll be sorry.
 
And I just thought of this: You may be out of the information loop if you move to an isolated BOL. You have to keep the radio or internet or tv to stay in the loop! How will you know when things go upside down, and to start posting watches?
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts