# The loner vs community preppers



## zookeeper

This is a very divided camp. Those who want to be self contained and sufficent(individuals, couples, families), and others who prefer a local network of like minded people who all work together and barter among themselves.
I am a proponent of the latter, preferring the strength in numbers philosophy. But I know many are seclusionists, opting for the safety of privacy.
Both sides have pros and cons.


----------



## pixieduster

Most of the ones that I came in contact with and were asking about "groups" did not have family support. Most were fairly new preppers seeking knowledge and comraderie. Fortunately my family is like minded. Heck I first learned from my parents. We don't live close but there is a plus side, multiple bug out locations. All depends on what the most appropriate site is for the situation. Don't think I want to be in a group. Just my feeling. Doesn't mean It won't happen if the situation arises out of necessity. Content with my family only prepping style.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

We're the family type ... if/when TSHTF they all plan on coming here ... all 22 of them. :2thumb:


----------



## BillS

I'd prefer to be part of a network without alerting people who might be dangerous later. To me it's too risky trying to achieve that. I think the people who could be the most useful to me would be people right next door on either side of me or right across the street. If they were having a problem with people I could help defend them and vice versa.


----------



## FrankW

You simply cannot survive by yourslef or in a very small group.
You must have enough folks to be able to afford to keep at least one able bodied adult (taking shifts) who stands guard at all times.

If you only have 2 adults that's impossible. 3 wont work either, 10+ able bodied and armed adults (including boys in their mid to late teens) seem like a good start.


----------



## BillS

We'll have four adults in our home. Me and my stepson will take turns guarding the place 24/7. We have enough food and water in the house. We don't plan on going outside much for a long time.


----------



## sailaway

I'm definately the loaner type, every one in my family thinks I'm nuts.:nuts::nuts: The only ones who don.t are on this forum, probably some of you here may think I'm nuts also.:nuts: In my case the only thing I can do is have lots of stashes to keep falling back to.:dunno:


----------



## ContinualHarvest

I've been teaching my friends and family how to garden and preserve food. Hopefully, what I show others how to do for themselves will keep them from asking from my own stores. One of my dear friends that I've been working with (showing how to preserve food) has been trading goods with me lately. 
The whole loner VS group situation will highly depend on the situation. If the situation warrants a bug out by foot, the most important things I'll be able to bring is my skills and whatever we can carry on our backs. A shelter in place situation, there will be more opportunity to trade goods with others. Priority number one is OPSEC. You never let anyone know how much you have or if you have more of what they've seen.


----------



## FatTire

BlueZ said:


> You simply cannot survive by yourslef or in a very small group.
> You must have enough folks to be able to afford to keep at least one able bodied adult (taking shifts) who stands guard at all times.
> 
> If you only have 2 adults that's impossible. 3 wont work either, 10+ able bodied and armed adults (including boys in their mid to late teens) seem like a good start.


Not true. Two man sniper teams survive just fine. The smaller the team, the more you have to keep moving.


----------



## Tirediron

FatTire said:


> Not true. Two man sniper teams survive just fine. The smaller the team, the more you have to keep moving.


You don't think that a sniper team is just a bit different than a group of people trying to survive,maybe grow food,lookafter livestock etc. not just go kill some enemy and sneak back to "base"


----------



## Davarm

FatTire said:


> Not true. Two man sniper teams survive just fine. The smaller the team, the more you have to keep moving.


I'll be darned FT, I agree with you again, The more people in the group, the more resources are required, greater possibility for conflict and the harder they will be to control.

For me, it is the immediate family first and foremost. In this area though, about 1/2 the county is related to us and alot of us are kinda clickish, we may not even like some of them but in a pinch you can usually count on them so it will certainly be interesting.


----------



## MsSage

Funny I was talking to a lady at work in the parking lot about this very thing LOL We both agree we need the community to join together. There is no way we could survive without each other. What I would like to know after the fact then what? 15 years down the road your children are wanting to find someone and get married and start their own life...ok who where ?????
I know when I first started prepping I was ok give me a cave and bar the door, but now I know I cant rebuild alone.


----------



## FatTire

Tirediron said:


> You don't think that a sniper team is just a bit different than a group of people trying to survive,maybe grow food,lookafter livestock etc. not just go kill some enemy and sneak back to "base"


I think it's clear you've no idea what a sniper team does, and you missed the point. Small units can survive just fine, even loners, the key is mobility. If you want to stay in one place, you need a force to defend that space. If your ok with keeping on the move, you can also donjust fine. It all depends on your personal goals.


----------



## Tirediron

FatTire said:


> I think it's clear you've no idea what a sniper team does, and you missed the point. Small units can survive just fine, even loners, the key is mobility. If you want to stay in one place, you need a force to defend that space. If your ok with keeping on the move, you can also donjust fine. It all depends on your personal goals.


Can you not respond without being a condecending [email protected]$$ ? how do you know what i know about anything? if I missed the point maybe it was poorly presented.:scratch


----------



## FatTire

Tirediron said:


> Can you not respond without being a condecending [email protected]$$ ? how do you know what i know about anything? if I missed the point maybe it was poorly presented.:scratch


no, i cant.

the only thing i know about you is what you say, and what you say indicates that you know nothing about what a sniper team actualy does.

ill give you that i may not have adequately communicated, its a shortcomming of text. if you have questions please ask, and i am sorrry for any offense, it was not my intent.


----------



## gypsysue

FatTire said:


> no, i cant.
> 
> the only thing i know about you is what you say, and what you say indicates that you know nothing about what a sniper team actualy does..


You're able to assess that all he knows about sniper teams by this statement: Tirediron - "You don't think that a sniper team is just a bit different than a group of people trying to survive,maybe grow food,lookafter livestock etc. not just go kill some enemy and sneak back to "base" "

Wow, you must be some kind of god, because All I saw was him pointing out that a sniper team is probably different from a group of people trying to survive... (read it above). He didn't seem to say anything about what a sniper team does or doesn't do, as far as I can see. :dunno:

But, that's all the time and attention I'm going to give you.

Back to the subject, I think the potential is there for survival whether you're one person alone, or a large goup, or anything in between. Certainly some things will make it easier for some people than other things, or other people.

There are a lot of variables, some of which are knowledge, luck, hard work, age and health, location, climate, etc. If I were going to be alone when the SHTF there are certain places I'd rather be than other places.

However, given the large size of our family and that they all intend to gather here on our homestead, I'll have a whole crew of snipers...er, um, I mean, _helping hands_ in the garden...


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> I think it's clear you've no idea what a sniper team does, and you missed the point. Small units can survive just fine, even loners, the key is mobility. *If you want to stay in one place, you need a force to defend that space.* If your ok with keeping on the move, you can also donjust fine. It all depends on your personal goals.


I think you need to go back and read the OP. Mobility was not an option. A person wouldn't have to know anything about a sniper team or how they operate. All that they'd have to do is read your post to know it was not applicable within the OP's parameters.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FatTire

mosquitomountainman said:


> I think you need to go back and read the OP. Mobility was not an option. A person wouldn't have to know anything about a sniper team or how they operate. All that they'd have to do is read your post to know it was not applicable within the OP's parameters.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Hmmm... I don't see where it says mobility isn't an option. Perhaps it's implied, but I don't see it that way. The sniper thing was just an example the small groups can survive, perhaps not the best example. So, again, I appologise for any offense.


----------



## zookeeper

My reasons for favoring a communal effort is that you have more of an all around support system. "Is there a doctor in the house?"
That could be extremely important. Someone who can set a broken bone, suture a gash, etc. Or someone who is skilled at diesel mechanics, welding, carpentry?
Plus more people to provide security. A large compound will need protection. Fortified road blocks, 24/7 armed guards patrolling the perimiter.

And then there's the food issue. Some will excell at raising livestock, others may have a green thumb for veggies.
Of course, the larger an operation, requires a central group to oversee it. An elected ruling counsel to handel decisions, disputes, future planning. What allowed man to become the dominate species was being organized as a group.


----------



## bahramthered

There are two schools of though on this and they're both valid;

One is the idea more people the more options, more skill sets, more genes for a very long term survival/rebuilding.

The downside is more mouths to feed, more needs for meds, more ptoential for a disease spreading through the group, and of course the possibility they know nothing other than a pack mule or worse are an liability. And of course you could even be facing a mutiny. Watch Dawn of the Dead for a picture perfect examples.
Security guards lose their fortress and become prisoners and are expected to do dangerous jobs, new comers bring the disease inside the fortress, and the guy with the bad aditude who refuses to work or fight and almost kills the fighters when he wanders away at a critical time. 

But cold logic just keeps coming back to me. You can survive pretty much forever (well 50-60years) alone with just some basic knowledge. But what's the point if your the last human on earth? Same logic applies if you run off with your family, what happens to the kids after a couple decades? 

I suppose to optimal would be a town. A loose cluster of teams (or families) who trade, provide defense together, etc. Far enough apart that a disease couldn't wipe everyone, enough variety of work to provide lots of options, and close enough you can get help, and social enough you and your kids could find a spouse if it really is a long term rebuilding.


----------



## diannamarsolek

we have 50 folks so i am not to worried yet but i think allot of folks will be asking us for food shelter and safety and we will have to say no we told you to be ready and you are not we are not worried about the gov but a natural problem like Katrina or MT Helen going up agen most folks are even less prepped for that kind of thing than thay used to be


----------



## BillM

I had an interesting talk with a gentelman from Bosnia today while he was installing a Granite countertop for my daughter.

He came to this country in 1995 after surviving the Bosnian civil war.

He said his famiely was farming outside the city. They had it easier than those traped in the city due to being able to grow their own food and having cattle and chickens. They had no electricity in the entire country for five years. Someone had to be awake 24/7 to guard the crops and livestock. Gangs controled the distribution of all wealth and goods in the country. He said that he had watched the preppers show on TV and that the ones who used bunkers would not survive. Those would be traps. he also said you would need a large group to be able to secure nessicary things and to repel intruders. He was upset that he had survived once and now may have to survive again here. He was a very affiable guy!


----------



## pixieduster

BillM said:


> I had an interesting talk with a gentelman from Bosnia today while he was installing a Granite countertop for my daughter.
> 
> He came to this country in 1995 after surviving the Bosnian civil war.
> 
> He said his famiely was farming outside the city. They had it easier than those traped in the city due to being able to grow their own food and having cattle and chickens. They had no electricity in the entire country for five years. Someone had to be awake 24/7 to guard the crops and livestock. Gangs controled the distribution of all wealth and goods in the country. He said that he had watched the preppers show on TV and that the ones who used bunkers would not survive. Those would be traps. he also said you would need a large group to be able to secure nessicary things and to repel intruders. He was upset that he had survived once and now may have to survive again here. He was a very affiable guy!


Wow Bill, good example of keeping our ears open. History is screaming at us.


----------



## Davarm

BillM said:


> Those would be traps. he also said you would need a large group to be able to secure nessicary things and to repel intruders.


I have believed that the bunkers would be traps, just put a trash bag over the air vent and just wait for them to open the door. Or better yet a little smoke or even a squirt of gasoline would probably do the job.

For the group thing, I still dont see it that way. The section of road that we live on, just blockade each end then anyone coming would be on foot, fine target for anyone living on this stretch. If the neighbors decide to go zombie, well, I can see for a loooong way in any direction.


----------



## BillM

*My Dad*



pixieduster said:


> Wow Bill, good example of keeping our ears open. History is screaming at us.


My Dad was the leader of a squad of combat engineers . During the invasion of Germany in the Hurtigan forest His squad held a possition against 250 German soldiers who were in a bunker that was five feet thick and reinforced concrete. We could not get in and they could not get out but every time they changed their guard in the pill boxes surrounding the bunker they got shot up by dad's fifty cal. machine gun. Ten days later , they advanced on the bunker and rattled the steel door with a BAR and 250 German soldiers surrendered. The moral is that as long as you or friendly forces control the area, a bunker represents security. When you no longer control the area, it is a trap!


----------



## Davarm

BillM said:


> The moral is that as long as you or friendly forces control the area, a bunker represents security. When you no longer control the area, it is a trap!


That a pretty good "Bottom Line" on bunkers.


----------



## stayingthegame

snipers are trained to see and use what is around them for their survival. constant movement means that you will be taking your food from what is around you. in effect stealing from others, raiding gardens, and possibly killing small animals. snipers generally have to look out for themselves and one or two equally trained partners. and snipers generally only go out for short amounts of time, maybe two weeks. plus they come back to friendly areas after. most people including preppers have family or close friends they will have to keep in mind when tshtf comes. even small prepper groups will likely have a weak link in them. and most will not be as well trained as a sniper. nor will there be a safe place to return to if we have to bug out.


----------



## zookeeper

*stayingthegame*- The mythical living-off-the-land sniper will do just fine....provided he doesn't have a broken wrist to deal with. Or a fractured leg.
A life of killing people for your next meal will only get you so far. And then your luck will run out. When another sniper will scope you out.


----------



## Ration-AL

zookeeper said:


> *stayingthegame*- The mythical living-off-the-land sniper will do just fine....provided he doesn't have a broken wrist to deal with. Or a fractured leg.
> A life of killing people for your next meal will only get you so far. And then your luck will run out. When another sniper will scope you out.


i like this silly line of reasoning because only 6 out of 1,200 soldiers is selected as a sniper for their battalion, typically 3, 2 man teams per.

So that said, what are the chances anyone here is an actual trained sniper?
very slim, i say, so playing out the "sniper" case is kind of laughable and if not laughable, it's some chest thumping, because then it just sounds like a chance to brag your an actual military trained sniper.

i like the lone wolf thing, people need to understand even lone wolves don't make it on their own, 90% of the wolfs die if they can't find another pack willing to accept them or start their own..........


> Wolves have inhabited many varied forested ranges. They consume a variety of small and large animals and work as a pack during the hunt. Working as a pack allows them to capture larger prey such as moose and elk. Their success rate during a hunt is a very low 1 out of every 5 hunts. Due to this, a lone wolf has a very poor chance of survival and often dies from starvation. Wolves in the wild live an average of 8- 13 years.


i take as much pride as anyone about being able to live off the land and off grid if needed, but i highly doubt i would be ale to go an indefinite amount of time without backup or help, after all eventually something will go wrong and you'll need a hand....

personally i'm like someone else had said, I'm training the neighbors and friends in various outdoor skills and have a good rapport with them, the way i see it give a man a fish and he eats for a day but teach him to fish and feed him for life, if everyone is out there working for the good of the group getting food, the larger number as long as it's not huge shouldn't be much of an issue, obviously there is such thing as too big, but a small group of about 10 in my mind seems best gives you enough for a perimeter and back up, enough to send a group out for scavenge and hunting while another group guards , and enough fire power to keep back a fairly good sized force if hunkered down well enough....

i would love to think the lone wolf thing would be the ticket and would love to think i'm just that good, but in reality 99.5% of the population isn't so why should i be in that .5%?


----------



## lotsoflead

MsSage said:


> Funny I was talking to a lady at work in the parking lot about this very thing LOL We both agree we need the community to join together. There is no way we could survive without each other. What I would like to know after the fact then what? 15 years down the road your children are wanting to find someone and get married and start their own life...ok who where ?????
> I know when I first started prepping I was ok give me a cave and bar the door, but now I know I cant rebuild alone.


 For every person that you take in, that'll be one less day you will survive. every person that you help or take in has a best friend and a close relative and eventually they'll show up at your door, you give to one, you open the flood gates. The hungrier and more desperate people get, the less time they're goin to waste asking you for help, they'll just take what you have,.


----------



## cengasser

I wonder if how people feel loner vs group is divided by male/female in anyway. One of the ladies said community. Men seem to lean loner/family. Me, not sure. Maybe a few neighbors. But certainly not ALL of them. We would have a problem. 
It will/would be interesting.......,


----------



## pixieduster

cengasser said:


> I wonder if how people feel loner vs group is divided by male/female in anyway. One of the ladies said community. Men seem to lean loner/family. Me, not sure. Maybe a few neighbors. But certainly not ALL of them. We would have a problem.
> It will/would be interesting.......,


Nope....female/loner here. And know many like me.


----------



## NaeKid

sailaway said:


> I'm definately the loaner type, every one in my family thinks I'm nuts.:nuts::nuts: The only ones who don.t are on this forum, probably some of you here may think I'm nuts also.:nuts: In my case the only thing I can do is have lots of stashes to keep falling back to.:dunno:


Sure you are nuts!

Anyone who cares about their hometown enough to mow the lawns when the towns employees couldn't give two shits about it is nuts! You have my vote for the president of the UnitedStates!

:2thumb:


----------



## NaeKid

Ration-AL said:


> So that said, what are the chances anyone here is an actual trained sniper?
> 
> very slim, i say, so playing out the "sniper" case is kind of laughable and if not laughable, it's some chest thumping, because then it just sounds like a chance to brag your an actual military trained sniper.


The funny thing is that any person who is a hunter could also be a sniper. Anyone who can bring home the venison or can bring home the wild-turkey or ... can also be a sniper. Today's advances in civilian hunting technology (rifles, shotguns, crossbows, compoundbows, etc) can turn your average hunter into a full-out sniper.


----------



## FatTire

bahramthered said:


> There are two schools of though on this and they're both valid;
> 
> One is the idea more people the more options, more skill sets, more genes for a very long term survival/rebuilding.
> 
> The downside is more mouths to feed, more needs for meds, more ptoential for a disease spreading through the group, and of course the possibility they know nothing other than a pack mule or worse are an liability. And of course you could even be facing a mutiny. Watch Dawn of the Dead for a picture perfect examples.
> Security guards lose their fortress and become prisoners and are expected to do dangerous jobs, new comers bring the disease inside the fortress, and the guy with the bad aditude who refuses to work or fight and almost kills the fighters when he wanders away at a critical time.
> 
> But cold logic just keeps coming back to me. You can survive pretty much forever (well 50-60years) alone with just some basic knowledge. But what's the point if your the last human on earth? Same logic applies if you run off with your family, what happens to the kids after a couple decades?
> 
> I suppose to optimal would be a town. A loose cluster of teams (or families) who trade, provide defense together, etc. Far enough apart that a disease couldn't wipe everyone, enough variety of work to provide lots of options, and close enough you can get help, and social enough you and your kids could find a spouse if it really is a long term rebuilding.


this is, imho, exactly right. tho i dont know how well you have or will fare in this forum, as this sounds to me, in my liberal opinion, to be very liberal in philosophy. band together with a group of people of like mind, and then from eath according to ability, to each according to need. :kiss:


----------



## JustCliff

Here is a bit of food for thought. There is a lot to read on the subject of Ishi. It does go to show though that one can live and survive in solotude. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi


----------



## BillM

Me, my wife my two children and their spouces, my grand children and their spouces.
That is five grown women and five grown men and one child.
A total of eleven close immediat famiely members.

This is enough people to provide guard duth and a division of labor.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

JustCliff said:


> Here is a bit of food for thought. There is a lot to read on the subject of Ishi. It does go to show though that one can live and survive in solotude.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi


Did you read the entire article? Especially this part: "...Ishi's mother and other relatives died soon after Ishi's return. Ishi lived three years beyond the raid alone, the last of his tribe. *Finally, starving and with nowhere to go*, at the age of about 49 in 1911, Ishi walked out into the white man's world ..."

It actually proves that even a man born and raised to live off the land won't make it long by himself.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> this is, imho, exactly right. tho i dont know how well you have or will fare in this forum, as this sounds to me, in my liberal opinion, to be very liberal in philosophy. band together with a group of people of like mind, and then _*from eath according to ability, to each according to need. *_ :kiss:


Liberal? More like communism. Karl Marx wasn't the first to use this phrase but he is the one who made it famous. Unfortunately since it's based on a flawed fundamental belief regarding the nature of man it was doomed to failure from the start.

And since Communism and Socialism have both failed the test of time it's amazing that anyone still holds to this doctrine.

The problem with liberals is that they can't really make a cohesive argument so they resort to name calling and labeling. Keep the discussion respectful without the name calling and labeling and even liberals will do well here.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FatTire

mosquitomountainman said:


> Did you read the entire article? Especially this part: "...Ishi's mother and other relatives died soon after Ishi's return. Ishi lived three years beyond the raid alone, the last of his tribe. *Finally, starving and with nowhere to go*, at the age of about 49 in 1911, Ishi walked out into the white man's world ..."
> 
> It actually proves that even a man born and raised to live off the land won't make it long by himself.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


um, i dissagree. at best it proves that 20 people facing a booming population of agressive, hostile, superior armed, and new disease carrying people. cannot survive as a rebuildable cultural population.

Jason


----------



## Anvilandhammer

In a total collapse, I believe it comes down to phases during and after that dictate loner/community. When chaos is all around a small group or individual is easier to hide. After the dust settles and there are less people a growing group will be necessary. Instead of allowing whoever has hands and mouths into the group, make it more like a job opening. What do you bring to the table? What skills or supplies? Those that cannot contribute for themselves or their family cannot join.


----------



## Tirediron

I think that the real answer to this is to have just enough people to provide security, (depends a lot on location) and build community tyes with other around you, Any large group will start to unravel pretty quick it there is no threat to respond to,because of the natural thought that each person works harder or is more valuable than the rest.


----------



## twiggie

I would like to have a large-ish group to work with but it's surprisingly hard to find good help around here. Unless I find some people that are actually willing to do the work to form a community, it looks like it's just going to be my family. That shouldn't be a problem though if my brother can get out of Atlanta in time. If he does it will be my parents, my brother and our spouses and my stepson. Can we make it? Maybe. Will we try anyway? Damn right. 
I had a few friends that I had high hopes for of becoming preppers but they somehow turned into zombies instead.


----------



## zookeeper

Tirediron said:


> I think that the real answer to this is to have just enough people to provide security, (depends a lot on location) and build community tyes with other around you, Any large group will start to unravel pretty quick it there is no threat to respond to,because of the natural thought that each person works harder or is more valuable than the rest.


I disagree with the idea that 'any large group' will unravel due to infighting. That's why a governing body will need to be established. Man is a social animal by nature. If we weren't, we would have never made it past the primative stone age.

However, there is no "one size fits all' when it come to surviving a social collapse. For some, a very small group(1-6) approximately, will have an advantage. Perhaps one member has military training in Special Forces/SEAL's/Marine sniper. Or just an overall background as an outdoorsmen.

On the other hand, the average person/prepper has no such experiences. Therefore a group effort provides the best chance for survival. By pooling their individual skills, everybody benefits. It will be up to each of us to find our niche.


----------



## FatTire

i think it comes down to opperational approach. the smaller the group, the more mobile you must be. if you are a loner, or even a four to eight person squad, dont stay in one place too long. if you are three hundred strong, have a wide perimeter, and a secured exit path.


----------



## lotsoflead

zookeeper said:


> I disagree with the idea that 'any large group' will unravel due to infighting. *That's why a governing body will need to be established.* Man is a social animal by nature. If we weren't, we would have never made it past the primative stone age.
> 
> .


 just look at what governing bodies have done to our country and the world since the stone age, the more people, the larger the governing body,the more rules,regs,taxes, the more public employees and the more wars fought. Every town,county,state in the country is juggeling the books to keep from admitting they;re bankrupt. I say leave me alone if I'm not bothering you and my septic is not going on your property. A few simple rules would do, leave the dictators who seem to know what is best for everyone on the outside.


----------



## zookeeper

lotsoflead said:


> just look at what governing bodies have done to our country and the world since the stone age, the more people, the larger the governing body,the more rules,regs,taxes, the more public employees and the more wars fought. Every town,county,state in the country is juggeling the books to keep from admitting they;re bankrupt. I say leave me alone if I'm not bothering you and my septic is not going on your property. A few simple rules would do, leave the dictators who seem to know what is best for everyone on the outside.


You are more than welcome to your version of a solitary existence. I am a firm believer in small government, with public support, minus the corporate brainwashing the population has been subjected to over the past 300 years. You mean to say you have no concept of the puppet masters, and their central banking system? Control of the media, politicians, education, etc?
Or rogue dictators who have seized power throughout history?

If a small simple group is what suits your needs, ok. But everyone living like a turtle is not natural. If you wish to spend your days as hermit, fine. You should have that right. But most people require a support system, that you believe will always be corrupt.
In order to rebuild the system, society will have to evolve. Everyone living a Jeremiah Johnson life will not get man to the next level.


----------



## BillS

I want to live my life without interference from other people. After the economy and society collapses there will probably be some group of idiots that wants to be in charge. They can go there way and I'll go mine.


----------



## UncleJoe

BillS said:


> After the economy and society collapses there will probably be some group of idiots that wants to be in charge.


No doubt about it. Wherever a void opens up, something will rush in to fill it.


----------



## Fridge

I live in a rural area near a National forest in Virginia...I am all alone. Fully self sufficient with Solar power with Generators if needed. Well water and a 2000 sq ft log home with plenty off room, 3 types of heating, wood, kero, propane. I have completed a fully self contained survival bunker at 800 square feet with solar and generators with food for 2 people for at least a year with a hand pump to my well. Included a toilet and shower unit in my underground bunker. I did this all by myself as I am very efficient with tools and heavy equipment. I have realized that I would be better off with a few others to share the load of security, and day to day chores. It's hard to trust anyone.


----------



## RobTaylor

One of the things no one is talking about is how to select these groups people think will keep them safe. I see people hooking up on the web, bang their view of people on whether or not they agree on some discussions and have the right opinions. Everyone remember Rambo Labrand and that fiasco? "Patriot" podcaster who scammed a bunch of people by giving them a sob story and living on their property because he was into self reliance. On paper he was quite the prepper/asset. In reality he got high all day and had warrants, and neglected his kids.

If you want to be part f a group become a respected member of a local community that has some resilience, barring that a church or similar group. I keep to myself and don't prep with any group (especially people I know from the web, no offense) but I'm a known person in my community, have good relations with producers and business owner and neighbors and have kept my supplies private. When it hits the fan my community will pull together (as they have in blizzards etc) without the need for entanglement. If things fall apart I can retreat to my castle, if the community is doing OK I am a well liked part of it.

7 out of every 10 preppers on the web is, like everyone else on the web, not someone you can rely on long term. I work as a crime writer - I may be jaded but be careful about joining up with people who have more time to post on forums than they do to work, take care of business etc.


----------



## flpresson

How many people do I know that have unconditional love for me today, how many would claim that bullet meant for me? Add in all the chaos, fear, dispair and depression that is bound to come, and the village will have civil disputes and rise against each other...just human nature. Can't take that chance. Security, small numbers, moving when need be, that will be my goal, I pray to God we can do it... The less people around me, the less I have to fight off when those inner demons come into play. Later after the smoke has cleared, perhaps then I'll venture forward. Until my gut tells me otherwise, I'll be keeping a very low profile, praying for strength and wisdom.


----------



## chick

Survival will depend on LOCATION. 
Obviously if you are in a highly populated area your best bet would be to stay forted up until the masses die off, because if you're on the move not only do you lose your security and LT supplies, but you are a target for the grasshoppers looking for their next meal. 

Of course living up in Alberta, 2 hours from a big city I personally don't worry about anyone making it up this far to cause trouble once they realize what's happened to us. If we (I personally) can get through the first upheaval then I have the knowledge and supplies to survive but it would be better with the benefit of a group


----------



## gerschmedley

Alright, here are my thoughts. Being a Navy veteran and having gone through basic survival training. I have found that as a loner, you can survive almost indefinitely (if you are good and don't get incapacitated), but it's hard. Also, a "support network" is good, after the dust settles. Now for the rest of the story, as far as the "support network" goes, if/when the SHTF the time period immediately there after WILL be stressful enough that even some the best "preppers" will mentally collapse and run off the deep end. So, my advice? watch the people you want in your support network and see how they handle stress and pressure. If they have a hard time, they will probably be the first to go. I have seen people talk big in pre-training orientation only to fetal in when the test comes. And that was just training! I personally, will seek to help ONLY my immediate family at first and as things calm down, pull in remote family and then friends. I would only bring in people based on the likely hood that they WON'T shoot me, to get my stash or the upper hand.


----------



## Padre

*Definitely a group.*



gerschmedley said:


> Alright, here are my thoughts. Being a Navy veteran and having gone through basic survival training. I have found that as a loner, you can survive almost indefinitely (if you are good and don't get incapacitated), but it's hard.


And why would you want to? When you bug out of a F-18 you are forced by necessity to avoid the natives until you can be extracted. And sure, if you are good you can survive, on the move, almost indefinitely. But alone you can't build a camp, or begin any sort of division of labor that allows you to enjoy life.



gerschmedley said:


> I personally, will seek to help ONLY my immediate family at first and as things calm down, pull in remote family and then friends. I would only bring in people based on the likely hood that they WON'T shoot me, to get my stash or the upper hand.


You are going to EARN the MOST loyalty if you take people in when THEY most NEED YOU, rather than when you most need them. So I don't think the idea of seeking out others when you really start to need them.

My philosophy is, people are ALWAYS potential assets. You never know whats in their head. You never know what supplies they bring to the table. And perhaps most importantly, if they have the right attitude, you never know which stranger is going to save your ass by helping with chores after you break your leg, by being there when a bear attacks, or by standing a post and being awake when thieves or marauders attack. The key is the right attitude, you can't take in everyone, but I do believe you should try to be generous and give anyone who crosses your path a second look to see if they would fit in your group.

Think about it Navy, a naval ship is much more defensible than most homes and cabins, and yet how many men does it take to man the roving patrol and keep watch? And how many more men does it take to have manageable duties where the watch is at peak alertness? All that just to maintain a reasonable level of security on a steel fortress surrounded by water. Never mind the division of (intense) labor you will need to grow crops, chop wood, etc.

One person can survive, but one person can not hold a position even against only a small group, and if you want to enjoy life you have got to have that stability. What is the point of living if all you are doing is maintaining your physical life while loosing what make you truly human?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

BlueZ said:


> You simply cannot survive by yourslef or in a very small group.
> You must have enough folks to be able to afford to keep at least one able bodied adult (taking shifts) who stands guard at all times.
> 
> If you only have 2 adults that's impossible. 3 wont work either, 10+ able bodied and armed adults (including boys in their mid to late teens) seem like a good start.


I agree completely. Wealth in my view is resources and the manpower to exploit and protect them. Being a lone wolf presents many difficulties that make long term survival impossible in my opinion.


----------



## Padre

Padre said:


> One person can survive, but one person can not hold a position even against only a small group, and if you want to enjoy life you have got to have that stability.


And yes of course I know that any fixed position CAN be over-run, the point is that with a few hands, you can have more safety, and more stability. A lone man can't stay put long, Escape and Evade almost always means keep moving.


----------



## lotsoflead

zookeeper said:


> You are more than welcome to your version of a solitary existence. *I am a firm believer in small government,* with public support, minus the corporate brainwashing the population has been subjected to over the past 300 years. You mean to say you have no concept of the puppet masters, and their central banking system? Control of the media, politicians, education, etc?
> Or rogue dictators who have seized power throughout history?
> 
> If a small simple group is what suits your needs, ok. But everyone living like a turtle is not natural. If you wish to spend your days as hermit, fine. You should have that right. *But most people require a support system, that you believe will always be corrupt.
> In order to rebuild the system, society will have to evolve. Everyone living a Jeremiah Johnson life will not get man to the next level*.


*
I am a firm believer in small government*
then you're part of our problem. not the solution.

*But most people require a support system, that you believe will always be corrupt.
*

people do not require a support system,what you're saying is that you think they they require welfare,SSI and all sorts of other social programs plus an army to fight their wars. you like everything that got us in this mess.let people get off their A$$es and support themselves.

Jeremiah Johnson done alright and was living a great life til he broke his neighbors rules. the next level in your opinion is having someone telling you every move to make or a police state..


----------



## Jarhead0311

FatTire said:


> I think it's clear you've no idea what a sniper team does, and you missed the point. Small units can survive just fine, even loners, the key is mobility. If you want to stay in one place, you need a force to defend that space. If your ok with keeping on the move, you can also donjust fine. It all depends on your personal goals.


I'm a little confused here FT, how do these "sniper teams" survive? I think it is you who has no idea what a sniper team does. Sniper teams move from a larger unit who provides food, medical care, logistics, recon information and a host of other services. Unless you plan on killing and stealing sniper teams would have no way to survive without a base. The Sniper teams comparison doesn't seem to apply here, it's like saying cops patrol in pairs, true but not relevant.


----------



## FatTire

Seriously? Ok I'll try again. I concede the sniper team example was a poor one. The point I was trying to make tho, is still valid. Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


----------



## lotsoflead

FatTire said:


> Seriously? Ok I'll try again. I concede the sniper team example was a poor one. The point I was trying to make tho, is still valid. Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


 I'm independent and I agree, loners and small groups can survive.It's just that sniper teams sounded more like roving bands of thieves and if they didn't prepare, that's what they'll be til the word gets out.


----------



## Jarhead0311

FatTire said:


> Seriously? Ok I'll try again. I concede the sniper team example was a poor one. The point I was trying to make tho, is still valid. Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


 I'm not trying to start an augment and I agree if your objective is just "not die" then a loner or small group could survive but I ask you again where do they get there food how much ammo could they carry where will they sleep. A mobile unit has two options, a supply base or steal. Maybe you could point out another option.
While I agree with you that defensive positions can be overrun the weaker ones will be the first to go. It's just natural to go for the low hanging fruit first.Depending on the length of the disorder people will be forced to do like they did when they first came to america and band together for protection.


----------



## VUnder

Probably be best to stay out of harms way for two or three months to let everybody else sort themselves out. Afterward, come out, but it won't be easy. You will not be able to just start plowing and building while expecting a peacable existence. Defense will be paramount. I can see where it would be beneficial for several communities to support a fighting force. That force needs to go to other communities to help them set up and operate smoothly. Then, the group of communities will grow, and the force will grow. This will not be about conquering, but more to facilitate the further advancement of mankind. The sooner you band the communities together and have a support network for security, the sooner that everybody else will either join up, or leave you alone.


----------



## FatTire

Jarhead0311 said:


> I'm not trying to start an augment and I agree if your objective is just "not die" then a loner or small group could survive but I ask you again where do they get there food how much ammo could they carry where will they sleep. A mobile unit has two options, a supply base or steal. Maybe you could point out another option.
> While I agree with you that defensive positions can be overrun the weaker ones will be the first to go. It's just natural to go for the low hanging fruit first.Depending on the length of the disorder people will be forced to do like they did when they first came to america and band together for protection.


i think what you cal 'steal', i call scavenging. people can in fact live off the land, at least in certain areas. this is dependant on the type of shtf event, and the extent of it.

i already live without a lot of stuff most people think is essential, and i do scavenge. i dumpster dive and frequent craigslists free and barter sections. its nice to have a base of opperations, but i could get along just fine moving about. i have a bow and arrow, and i can make more. i have a skill set that allows me the freedom i want. you dont have to be stationary to plant crops and harvest wild things. i admit some of this is luck, i live in a very fertile area, with lots to eat if you know what and how.

personaly, i love th idea of cooperative living, ive just never met anyone i could live with long term.

in a total collapse situation, i would not take from those trying to rebuild a society, i would avoid such groups. at least for a long time. i cant stand the controls the current corporate system has over me, ill be damned if id put up with it after tshtf. i dont believe in your system, your gods, nor your traditions of control, ownership, and domination.

i live by the first rule of pimpin... dont ..ck with me, and i wont ..ck wichoo


----------



## Padre

*Possible, but not preferable!*



FatTire said:


> Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


What a life, constantly on the move, constantly looking for your next meal, for shelter, for a SAFE water supply, constantly hoping that no one spots you, since no matter how safe your camp, it can't compare to a well built cabin with four walls and fixed defenses, hoping that you don't accidently hunt or gather on someone else's property and that if you do they don't take issue with that and shoot you dead where you stand. If that is fine, I would hate to see a bad lifestyle.

Let me tell you from personal experience being a refugee is not a good way to live, even though it IS POSSIBLE.


----------



## BillS

FatTire said:


> Seriously? Ok I'll try again. I concede the sniper team example was a poor one. The point I was trying to make tho, is still valid. Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


Small groups don't have to be mobile. A small family that's properly supplied can bug in just fine. The biggest problem with being a loner is that you have to sleep some time. If you have more than one person capable of using a gun you can take turns staying awake and guarding the house from the inside.

A group of people in a camp are a bunch of sitting ducks. A group of people in a home are a much better defensive force. I read somewhere that people defending their home have a 4 to 1 defensive advantage over their attackers.


----------



## FatTire

BillS said:


> Small groups don't have to be mobile. A small family that's properly supplied can bug in just fine. The biggest problem with being a loner is that you have to sleep some time. If you have more than one person capable of using a gun you can take turns staying awake and guarding the house from the inside.
> 
> A group of people in a camp are a bunch of sitting ducks. A group of people in a home are a much better defensive force. I read somewhere that people defending their home have a 4 to 1 defensive advantage over their attackers.


thats a psychological advantage, and it only exists so long as you want to keep what you got more than those trying to take it want it. holds up well when the takers are a foriegn military force.

as to lifestyle, im a journeyman electrician, as such i move around a lot anyway, being mobile isnt such an adjustment for me


----------



## Jarhead0311

FatTire said:


> i think what you cal 'steal', i call scavenging. people can in fact live off the land, at least in certain areas. this is dependant on the type of shtf event, and the extent of it.
> *There won't be much to scavenge after the SHTF especially in the way of food, so you will be forced to take from someone else.*
> 
> i already live without a lot of stuff most people think is essential, and i do scavenge. i dumpster dive and frequent craigslists free and barter sections.
> 
> its nice to have a base of opperations, but i could get along just fine moving about. i have a bow and arrow, and i can make more.
> *gonna carry your tools with you too? cooking gear... and you will have to find new food every day because you will have no way to store it.*
> 
> i have a skill set that allows me the freedom i want. you dont have to be stationary to plant crops and harvest wild things.
> *and what's to keep someone else from harvesting your crops how long before those wild things are gone do you suppose you will be the only one trying to survive because they weren't prepared?*
> i admit some of this is luck, i live in a very fertile area, with lots to eat if you know what and how.
> *You live in a very fertile area with lots to eat..... and you don't think that will change? Really?*
> 
> personaly, i love th idea of cooperative living, ive just never met anyone i could live with long term.
> 
> in a total collapse situation, i would not take from those trying to rebuild a society, i would avoid such groups. at least for a long time. i cant stand the controls the current corporate system has over me, ill be damned if id put up with it after tshtf. i dont believe in your system, your gods, nor your traditions of control, ownership, and domination.
> 
> i live by the first rule of pimpin... dont ..ck with me, and i wont ..ck wichoo
> *Oh but you will be f**ked with....count on it*


You seem to have an idea of what post SHTF will be like that does not conform to history. This won't be the first society to collapse. Study some of the earlier ones.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> um, i dissagree. at best it proves that 20 people facing a booming population of agressive, hostile, superior armed, and new disease carrying people. cannot survive as a rebuildable cultural population.
> 
> Jason


Sorry bud, you seem to have proven my point. We're talking a SHTF type situation where there will most likely be a lot of people trying to take your stuff and possibly your life. In other words ... people hostile to your survival. In ancient cultures banishment from the tribe often meant death. If Ishi couldn't make it on his own under hostile conditions with all of the knowledge and skills he possessed it's highly unlikely that many others could.

You would also seem to assert that it takes great numbers or overwhelming force to survive. Obviously this conflicts with the "loner" concept.

The fact remains that Ishi was starving and ready to take a chance of facing death at the hands of his enemy rather than to remain at large and starve.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## dawnwinds58

There are several reasonable camps in this discussion, and there is sense in each of them. People have different ideas of what will work for them and their families. The problem is it will likely be a combination of several of them.

In the beginning the hordes will come to take what you have and it will be hard knowing which person to accept. A group with children may have found those children abandoned and started using them as bait to get inside your compound. As the population decreases, the need to have enough people to survive a winter, or to split work with, will cause you to bring unknown personalities into the community.

You must make it understood that all attacks will be met with deadly force, and that all members will be expected to defend the community. Those who can't fight can support those who do, even if it's only reloading and bandaging. Defense must be planned and provided for, even in a community. The location must be defendable.

I found this right here in one of the threads. It makes sense leaving it here in this thread as well. It does open a can of worms when it comes to defense.






Oh, and the problem with the movies mentioned, is they are movies and not real life. No one hollers cut after the bear is in the cabin. You're just dead, then, or from the massive bleeding from the attack. You are alone and can't get to medical help, so you die alone. No one knows what it will be like, but we will adapt. People who spent hours on the computer, watching videos, working and complaining about government will have to raise their own food for summer and to carry them through winter. In movies you don't see the smoking of the meat, firewood cutting, fish catching, hunting and butchering, clothes mending, haying for the stock, feeding stock, mending fences, and the hundreds of other jobs needed to survive. Two hours of Robert Redford in a bear coat doesn't seem much like a training film for societal collapse, or a "zombie" attack.


----------



## FatTire

mosquito, youre mixing my posts out of context. cheers.

jarhead, youre making a lot of assumptions i dont agree with, not the least of which is about my knowledge of history. what you say is historicaly true regarding what happens whn cities fail. i dont liv near a city. and im not trying to rebuild the world. yes there will b others trying the same game as me, just as there will be others trying groups to take over ever larger areas, history tells us gangs (groups) war with one another. ill take my chances on my own.

yes, i can and will carry my tools with me. 

you seem to be trying awefully hard to take apart my strategy, assuming you know the future, and an aweful lot about me. why is that? do you have an agenda perhaps that has nothing at all to do with survival? 

im ok with you thinking im wrong. many have befor, yet im still here.


----------



## BillM

Survival's Rule of Threes

1. Three minuits without air
2.Three Hours without heat
3. Three days without water
4. Three weeks without food.
5.Three months without hope.

The last one is variable. God can be your companion or it could be a famiely member or a friend. It might even be your dog but a human requires some type of companion to survive. We are but our very nature social creatures.


----------



## Mick_Jee

zookeeper said:


> Those who want to be self contained and sufficent(individuals, couples, families), and others who prefer a local network of like minded people who all work together and barter among themselves.
> I am a proponent of the latter, preferring the strength in numbers philosophy. But I know many are seclusionists, opting for the safety of privacy.
> Both sides have pros and cons.


I watched all 38 episodes of the classic 1970's TV series 'Survivors' on youtube again recently (type 'Survivors 1975' into the youtube search box) and they seemed to prefer the 'strength in numbers' approach too.
In one episode the leader of a small group goes looking to make contact with other groups and tells them "We need you, and you need us!".
In this Survivors clip, Abby recovers from the plague that wiped out nearly all humans, and goes looking for other survivors in her village and can't bear the thought that she might be all alone on an empty planet-









*YOUTUBE*-


----------



## Jarhead0311

FatTire said:


> mosquito, youre mixing my posts out of context. cheers.
> 
> jarhead, youre making a lot of assumptions i dont agree with, not the least of which is about my knowledge of history.
> *I'm not making assumptions about your knowledge of history I merely pointed out that societal collapse is not uncommon and there is much to be learned from studying them.
> maybe you can point ouy some of my other assumptions*
> what you say is historicaly true regarding what happens whn cities fail. i dont liv near a city. and im not trying to rebuild the world. yes there will b others trying the same game as me, just as there will be others trying groups to take over ever larger areas, history tells us gangs (groups) war with one another. ill take my chances on my own.
> 
> yes, i can and will carry my tools with me.
> *Tools, food ,cooking equipment,extra clothes, weapon, ammo/arrows,water,knife, fire starter etc,etc *
> 
> you seem to be trying awefully hard to take apart my strategy,
> *True, I think it is a dangerous strategy If you believe in it you should be able to defend it.*
> 
> assuming you know the future,
> *I know nothing about the furture*
> and an aweful lot about me.
> *I know nothing about you...what makes you think I do, do I need to know you to critique your plan?*
> why is that? do
> you have an agenda perhaps that has nothing at all to do with survival?
> *Why would you think that? I've tried to be polite and respectful, do you always take criticism as a personal attack? *
> 
> im ok with you thinking im wrong. many have befor, yet im still here.


I've had a fair amount of experience with surviving in a hostile SHTF type of environment. I know that small groups can survive, but without the support of a larger group not dying is the best they can hope for.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

FatTire said:


> mosquito, youre mixing my posts out of context...
> 
> ...you seem to be trying awefully hard to take apart my strategy, ... do you have an agenda perhaps that has nothing at all to do with survival? ...


Nothing is out of context. IMO your strategy needs some improvement. Don't take things so personally.


----------



## FatTire

mosquitomountainman said:


> Nothing is out of context. IMO your strategy needs some improvement. Don't take things so personally.


Ok, fair enough.


----------



## Pixelphoto

Last I remember sniper teams had a thing called a radio where we could call in air or land based fire support. Could also request supply drops and evac when needed. Unless some of you have a magic radio or a genie bottle that can grant you those kinds of wishes I don't think the lone sniper routine will work in a post shtf scenario. Just my two cents worth.


----------



## Ration-AL

i say bugging in you need at least 10-12 and bugging out no more than 8.

bugging in: 4 people at each corner of house/Alamo/fort, 2 people patrolling the outside edge of the property , two teams of 3 for house chores and hunting/scavenging depending on needs, also gives you enough people to rotate shifts, plus 12 people can put down quit a bit of firepower if needed.


bugging out/on the move:

8 people max , more than that becomes hard and slow to move over rugged terrain , but gives you enough people to still break up in to teams of 3-4 and get work done, 3-4 people defending camp and doing camp chores and 3-4 people out in the woods foraging and hunting, also 6-8 people is the least amount i would want to have in any sort of drawn out fire fight.

i won't even get into the diversity of skills and knowledge that a larger group will have over the lone wolf.....you can have 2 trained navy seals side by side and one will still have greater strengths in some areas and the other guy is better in a different area, nobody can be the bees knees at everything, there is always someone better then you out there, no matter who you are.

also having more people is better for when you get sick, it's going to happen, it's life, we all get sick, we all get hurt at one point or another , accidents happen, if the ground gives way under you and you fracture your leg your dead, end of story, no way are you going to survive by yourself for the week or two takes for that to heal and to be able to start to move again, we all need some one to help us at one point or another


----------



## Padre

BillM said:


> Survival's Rule of Threes
> 
> 1. Three minuits without air
> 2.Three Hours without heat
> 3. Three days without water
> 4. Three weeks without food.
> 5.Three months without hope.
> 
> The last one is variable. God can be your companion or it could be a famiely member or a friend. It might even be your dog but a human requires some type of companion to survive. We are but our very nature social creatures.


Bill,
You forgot one that I think clinches this question.

#6. 300 hours the number of hours a person can go without sleep.

In a TEOTWAWKI situation or even just a serious SHTF security is widely agreed to be as big an issue as food and water. If you can't set a 24-7 watch you can't ever adequately address your security. Security is never 100% but without even the minimum of a standing watch I don't believe you will survive a SHTF unless you are literally in the middle of nowhere, e.g. the Yukon.

Sure, in a more populated area you could hide like a sniper practicing escape and evade tactics, and this might work for a time--BUT--not only does this leave you extremely vulnerable to attack (E&E is intended as a short term tactic) but it also leaves you vulnerable to wildlife, the elements, food shortages, and a lack of clean water. As you become more tired spinning your wheels to maintain these basic human needs while constantly moving, you will become more careless about your inadequate security, more fatigued, and as you note more hopeless.:surrender:


----------



## BillM

*Well ?*



Padre said:


> Bill,
> You forgot one that I think clinches this question.
> 
> #6. 300 hours the number of hours a person can go without sleep.
> 
> In a TEOTWAWKI situation or even just a serious SHTF security is widely agreed to be as big an issue as food and water. If you can't set a 24-7 watch you can't ever adequately address your security. Security is never 100% but without even the minimum of a standing watch I don't believe you will survive a SHTF unless you are literally in the middle of nowhere, e.g. the Yukon.
> 
> Sure, in a more populated area you could hide like a sniper practicing escape and evade tactics, and this might work for a time--BUT--not only does this leave you extremely vulnerable to attack (E&E is intended as a short term tactic) but it also leaves you vulnerable to wildlife, the elements, food shortages, and a lack of clean water. As you become more tired spinning your wheels to maintain these basic human needs while constantly moving, you will become more careless about your inadequate security, more fatigued, and as you note more hopeless.:surrender:


Well Hell, I always wanted to die in my sleep ! :dunno:


----------



## LongRider

I am very much of the loner mentality it is why I live in the sticks, simply do not like people as a whole. Cities make me homicidal. Other than online via this alias no one knows I prep, folks just know me as an anti social kind of guy with limited interaction with people. We bought this place in part because the terrain offers huge security benefits. Isolated with only one way to get up here. One side of the property has steep 800 to 900 foot bluffs, the other end has the one dirt road leading up here. That road has several choke points about two miles down from us with cliffs several hundred feet high on one side and several hundred foot drop offs on the other. Properly defended anyone trying to get through there would end up feeling like the Persians at the battle of Thermopylae. But to man that 24/7 alone would be a daunting task. I only have a few neighbors as the min lot size is 20 acres. Over time I have gotten to know that my neighbors are very like minded. So we joined together to formulate a security plan that rotates three or four of us at a time to man a check point and shooters to occupy a hide set back from the check point as back up. If trouble arrives the rest of us can be there in a few minutes and than nothing short of a full scale military assault with artillery support will make it through. Additionally we have set up a signal/alarm system so if someone manages to get past our perimeter and onto one of ours property, the rest of us can go to their aid
Beyond that we are each on our own to provide and take care of ourselves. No doubt, in a TEOTWAWKI scenario there will come a time that we may trade services and goods with each other.


----------



## hiwall

There are just to many scenarios to say if big group/small group, stay or mobile is best. Some scenarios are best for one way some are best the other way. The big group, well prepped, well defended, stay in one place would bad if if there was some government left that was going around to re-distribute the supplies evenly to all. You couldn't fight them, all you could do would be watch all your food and gear be hauled away to be re-distributed(you can not fight someone who has air support or heavy artillery). But long term the answer would have to be communities/small governments.


----------



## musketjim

FatTire said:


> i think it comes down to opperational approach. the smaller the group, the more mobile you must be. if you are a loner, or even a four to eight person squad, dont stay in one place too long. if you are three hundred strong, have a wide perimeter, and a secured exit path.


Great points. That is my philosophy, tailor yourself to your environment. Others you may count on may become unavailable due to martial law, illness or even death. I personally work hard on skill sets but still believe I would only scrape an existence out up here without some help. There are 2 stories about the death of the Alaskan used in the film (Nanook of the North). One is that he starved to death a couple years after the documentary was finished. Brutal life up here. Prepare for some but be ready to go alone if you need to.


----------



## Brumfield

If you can't survive alone, you won't make it with a large group. Begin with yourself, learn everything you can to survive as though you will never have anyone to help you... as though you may be the last man/woman on earth. Then carefully add to your circle of survival-minded friends and associates. I have dozens of friends from around the globe, yet I can think of only one of them that I would want as a fellow survivalist, the rest would be a dead weight around my legs while I try to survive after tshtf. They all have their specialty, whether engineers, doctors, nurses, or builders, but they also all have major drawbacks, they are very limited in functioning beyond their job and education. 

It amazes me today how many people can not dig a well or purify water, kill and slaughter a deer (or even a rabbit), load or fire a weapon, build even a basic shelter or build a fire in the rain. I care very much for my friends, but I would be overburdened in caring for their every need in a survival situation. Just dealing with personality conflicts would be wearisome. Kind of like bringing preschoolers to war and turning them lose. 

I am prepared to survive alone and care for my immediate family. If I come across others that are equally self sufficient then we will pool our knowledge, experience, and any resources. However I will return to working alone to care for myself and family if the situation calls for it. Oh, I forgot to mention, I've trained my 6 ft 3" 24-year-old son to survive for the last 20 years. He's an industrial engineer, a hunter, a cage fighter, and proficient with several weapons including firearms, crossbows and an axe.. he will be by my side wherever we go. And God is with me. I think we will be fine.


----------



## hiwall

Brumfield said:


> If you can't survive alone, you won't make it with a large group. Begin with yourself, learn everything you can to survive as though you will never have anyone to help you... as though you may be the last man/woman on earth. Then carefully add to your circle of survival-minded friends and associates. I have dozens of friends from around the globe, yet I can think of only one of them that I would want as a fellow survivalist, the rest would be a dead weight around my legs while I try to survive after tshtf. They all have their specialty, whether engineers, doctors, nurses, or builders, but they also all have major drawbacks, they are very limited in functioning beyond their job and education.
> 
> It amazes me today how many people can not dig a well or purify water, kill and slaughter a deer (or even a rabbit), load or fire a weapon, build even a basic shelter or build a fire in the rain. I care very much for my friends, but I would be overburdened in caring for their every need in a survival situation. Just dealing with personality conflicts would be wearisome. Kind of like bringing preschoolers to war and turning them lose.
> 
> I am prepared to survive alone and care for my immediate family. If I come across others that are equally self sufficient then we will pool our knowledge, experience, and any resources. However I will return to working alone to care for myself and family if the situation calls for it. Oh, I forgot to mention, I've trained my 6 ft 3" 24-year-old son to survive for the last 20 years. He's an industrial engineer, a hunter, a cage fighter, and proficient with several weapons including firearms, crossbows and an axe.. he will be by my side wherever we go. And God is with me. I think we will be fine.


That is excellent advise!!


----------



## BillS

Ration-AL said:


> i say bugging in you need at least 10-12 and bugging out no more than 8.
> 
> bugging in: 4 people at each corner of house/Alamo/fort, 2 people patrolling the outside edge of the property , two teams of 3 for house chores and hunting/scavenging depending on needs, also gives you enough people to rotate shifts, plus 12 people can put down quit a bit of firepower if needed.


I don't see why you need more than 2 people capable of using guns if you're bugging in. At least one person is awake at all times with a gun handy. I live in a small house. I can hear either door or any downstairs window from the kitchen or the living room. I'll be passing the time doing different things but always have my gun handy.

I live in a small house. There's no need to have a team patrolling the edges of the property. Don't need two teams of three people for household chores. My stepson and I will take care of security. Our wives will handle most of the housework. Our 4 cats will take care of the mice and whatever bugs they can find.

To me, the key is that you never have a time when everyone is asleep at the same time. That's dangerous.


----------



## BillS

I also think that having people outside constantly would draw too much attention. It won't be long and most people will be very hungry yet the people who are outside all the time are clearly getting enough to eat. That would make you a target. I think you're better off staying in the house as much as possible so people think you don't live there anymore.


----------



## Ration-AL

BillS said:


> I also think that having people outside constantly would draw too much attention. It won't be long and most people will be very hungry yet the people who are outside all the time are clearly getting enough to eat. That would make you a target. I think you're better off staying in the house as much as possible so people think you don't live there anymore.


depends on your area, everything we talk about here is situational...or i would hope it is...

with that i really don't feel like two is enough unless you've banded up with your neighbors , i see groups of people joining forces to go search and raid places that look to be abandoned or possibly otherwise , if you have a largish group of people knocking on your door asking for your stuff , i don't see you making out very well in the end and realistically that ain't going to be knocking...
sure you're going to take a few down with you but you're not going to win short of having fully automatic assault rifles or being a world class sniper... and who knows this group of people maybe your neighbors since they haven't heard from you or seen you and word on the street is that you prep...hide in plain sight and safety in numbers ...

as far as having people out, it's only 2 guys and they are running opposite of each other so if seen it just looks like 1 guy passes then about 30-40 mins later then next one passes ,not to mention that distance is good deal away from the actual site , so to most people it'll just look like a guy hunting/forging , the only way they would know it's a patrol is if they sat there unseen for a 4-5 hours , which would be hard to do since the point of the patrol is to find people who are trying to be unseen, lol , it works for my place and probably for other rural people as well, for city center i would enlist my block, much like the famous thread with the guy who lived through the balken war , he was city center, streets were essentially warring with other streets, security was broken up into blocks not by homes and even in his case he had a big family...



> I was lucky, my family was big in that time (15 members in one big house, 5-6 pistols, 3 Kalashnikov s) so we lived and survived, most of us.





> And from my expirience, you can not survive alone, strength is in the numbers, be close with your family, prepare with them, choose your friends wisely and prepare with them too.





> Actually city was broken in something like lot of street communities, in my street (15 or 20 houses) we organized patrols (5 armed man every night) to watch on gangs or enemies.
> 
> We traded things between people in that street, 5 miles from my street there was one street with something like organized traders, but it was to dangerous to go there, it worked only during the nighttime (during the day it was sniper alley) and you had more chance to be robed there than to trade, i used that street only 2 times, and belive me, only when i am really need something bad.


http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/shtf-survival-qa-a-first-hand-account.htm

again though, the whole thing is situational, you got to make the right call at the right time, sometimes if your unattached and you are with a group that's making bad choices, by all means go solo for a bit, if you need to team up with some people because bad guys are a comin, then band together and destroy them , do what needs to be done, but at one point you will need help, maybe less help then others if you have 15 people in your family! yikes!


----------



## TheLazyL

BillS said:


> I also think that having people outside constantly would draw too much attention. It won't be long and most people will be very hungry yet the people who are outside all the time are clearly getting enough to eat. That would make you a target. I think you're better off staying in the house as much as possible so people think you don't live there anymore.


Agreed.

If "they" don't know you are there then "they" don't know you have resources.


----------



## Ration-AL

TheLazyL said:


> Agreed.
> 
> If "they" don't know you are there then "they" don't know you have resources.


selco's experience and as i see it happening as well...


> Small family or single man, not good for survive in town SHTF, maybe in wilderness (i don t have expirience in that) Even if you stay low profile, hidden in your house with lot of food etc, sooner or later mob will come, and you have maybe have one or two guns, very hard. I agree with low profile policy, it is very important not to attract people with anything, but when they come, you need to have numbers, people and guns, best people is your family.


again though, your survival, your choices and everything is dependent upon the situation, no one should have a blanket policy ....


----------



## Beaniemaster2

I've sat here and read all 90 posts, the pro's, the con's etc...

Please don't attack me for sounding negative but one thing I've learned from alot of reading in 6 Survival Forums is that no plan is fail safe...

Larger groups are good but there will always be bigger groups with bigger weapons out there... 

Small groups at home are good but you can always be burned out... 

An underground shelter is only good if nobody finds you... 

Doesn't matter how much you have, you'll eventually run out...

Doesn't matter how long you live, you will eventually die... 

Basicly, I think if SHTF 'really bad', we are all screwed... 

Oh, and always have a Plan B...


----------



## machinist

I guess I'll put my oar in the water on this one. 

We voted with our wallet to put our trust in community, to a great degree, but we chose the community very carefully. Grew up near here and know a LOT of people and a lot about each of them. The general lifestyle here is one of relative self reliance, mostly due to this being a chronically poor area. 

We also chose to be close to family, which is a real asset in old age. Next, we worked hard to become an integral part of our community, by operating a business here, and after 10 years repairing farm equipment there is nobody mad at me that I know about, and a lot of people that wish I would still do their work. I'm retired, but sure I'll have to go back to work when things fly apart. At that point, I already have a reputation here, so it is a matter of putting the sign back up. Farmers need stuff fixed, and we will need what they produce. 

Yes on the negatives that many posters talked about. I see it as a matter of trying to improve your odds the best you can, then work out the details as they come along.


----------



## ndutchak1985

Tirediron said:


> Can you not respond without being a condecending [email protected]$$ ? how do you know what i know about anything? if I missed the point maybe it was poorly presented.:scratch


No need to bicker, and yes the way he said that may have been rude, however do realise that you may have offended him by stating that all snipers do is "kill the enemy and sneak back to base" because it offended me! there are many missions snipers go on and are never even told to take a shot.


----------



## Tweto

Beaniemaster2 said:


> I've sat here and read all 90 posts, the pro's, the con's etc...
> 
> Please don't attack me for sounding negative but one thing I've learned from alot of reading in 6 Survival Forums is that no plan is fail safe...
> 
> Larger groups are good but there will always be bigger groups with bigger weapons out there...
> 
> Small groups at home are good but you can always be burned out...
> 
> An underground shelter is only good if nobody finds you...
> 
> Doesn't matter how much you have, you'll eventually run out...
> 
> Doesn't matter how long you live, you will eventually die...
> 
> Basicly, I think if SHTF 'really bad', we are all screwed...
> 
> Oh, and always have a Plan B...


Every prepper should print this and post it some where that they see it daily.


----------



## lotsoflead

zookeeper said:


> You are more than welcome to your version of a solitary existence. I am a firm believer in small government, with public support, minus the corporate brainwashing the population has been subjected to over the past 300 years. You mean to say you have no concept of the puppet masters, and their central banking system? Control of the media, politicians, education, etc?
> Or rogue dictators who have seized power throughout history?
> 
> If a small simple group is what suits your needs, ok. But everyone living like a turtle is not natural. If you wish to spend your days as hermit, fine. You should have that right. *But most people require a support system, that you believe will always be corrupt.*
> In order to rebuild the system, society will have to evolve. *Everyone living a Jeremiah Johnson life will not get man to the next level*.


 the short of it is, you just want more of the same, welfare,foodstamps,SSI,2yrs unemployment..3 government employees for every person in the private sector.troops in 300 countries

what's your idea of the next level?, and what is the next level? we've had 400 yrs to get to the next level and it looks like total distruction of the planet is what we're after.


----------



## sailaway

Beaniemaster2 said:


> I've sat here and read all 90 posts, the pro's, the con's etc...
> 
> Please don't attack me for sounding negative but one thing I've learned from alot of reading in 6 Survival Forums is that no plan is fail safe...
> 
> Larger groups are good but there will always be bigger groups with bigger weapons out there...
> 
> Small groups at home are good but you can always be burned out...
> 
> An underground shelter is only good if nobody finds you...
> 
> Doesn't matter how much you have, you'll eventually run out...
> 
> Doesn't matter how long you live, you will eventually die...
> 
> Basicly, I think if SHTF 'really bad', we are all screwed...
> 
> Oh, and always have a Plan B...


I like this and agree with Machinist, building a reputation in your local community is a good thing to do. People you aroundfor a long time are ones that you can understand and know who you can and cant trust.


----------



## TheLazyL

machinist said:


> ...put our trust in community, to a great degree, but we chose the community very carefully....


Safety in numbers, I agree. But it only takes one village idiot to leave a opening intentional or unintentional open and all is lost.


----------



## lotsoflead

personally, I think many of you people are living in some dream world that I haven't went thru after traveling all the states and seven foriegn countries.
where are all these good samartians and these great towns?


----------



## LongRider

Ration-AL said:


> selco's experience and as i see it happening as well... again though, your survival, your choices and everything is dependent upon the situation, no one should have a blanket policy ....


Selco's experience coincides with others I have met who have survived catastrophic upheavals including my moms WWII experience in Europe. It is why I do not think that any urban environment is conducive to long term survival.



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Please don't attack me for sounding negative but one thing I've learned from alot of reading in 6 Survival


Remember this is the internet. Though we can share and learn a great deal from each other on these forums, the internet does not trump real life. Real life survivors teach us that human beings are a tenacious species able to endure, adapt, overcome even thrive in the most horrific conditions.



Beaniemaster2 said:


> no plan is fail safe...


This point is an absolute I think we should all be able to agree on.

Though I do not agree with all you are saying. You bring up some valid points and nothing that warrants any kind of attack. For the sake of discussion. here are a few of my opinions on some of your points. I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts.



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Larger groups are good but there will always be bigger groups with bigger weapons out there...


At some point a smaller stable self sustaining entrenched group will be able to hold off much larger forces. Armies travel on their stomachs meaning a large group without a supply line will quickly lose any advantage it may have. Entrenched group know their territory and have a vested interested in what they are protecting



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Small groups at home are good but you can always be burned out...


See above. It may be that I am defensive because this is basically the position that has evolved for us. My belief is that a group of self sustaining individual family units that are in a geographically defensible position can join together for matters of defense and limited mutual support. Will be able to hold off much larger forces and create an environment where all have the chance to survive indefinitely in relative comfort.



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Doesn't matter how much you have, you'll eventually run out...


Which is why I have moved away from the stock piling preps model of survival and towards being self sustaining. For us it is a better way of living and prepares us for an off grid way of life. So that when the switch goes off we will not be in for as great a shock or impact to our way of life as most others. We still have stores and stock piles but it is geared more towards equipment, replacement parts. We still rotate food stores and supplies so we have some back up in case crops fail or harvest and hunting is lean. That said increasingly the food we stock pile are foods we produce and preserve. As an example we are still eating huckleberries we harvested four years ago



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Doesn't matter how long you live, you will eventually die...


So it comes down to how you live and the quality of your life that truly matters



Beaniemaster2 said:


> Basicly, I think if SHTF 'really bad', we are all screwed...


If I believed that I would not be here. Our goal is to live as we do now no matter what happens in the world around us. Granted our ability to travel freely and some of the luxuries we are accustomed to will be gone but on a whole, our day to day lives will be largely unaffected. We won't be able to go to Disney world and have a Big Mac but we will be able sit on the deck enjoy the sounds of the birds or listen to some blues. BBQ or eat a roast and watch a movie sipping an occasional Casa Noble Single Barrel Añejo or an aged Hirsch 16 or Eagle Rare Bourbon, to celebrate good times good friends and tall tales. Who knows maybe one of these years my huckleberry wine will be worth drinking. Point being if it all goes to hell we will continue to work hard enjoy life and the fruits of our labors. To me that's not screwed by any means. Beats living life out wired to some cubical in a corporate beehive, your only escape is to zone out on some mindless techno crap.



zookeeper said:


> My reasons for favoring a communal effort is that you have more of an all around support system. "Is there a doctor in the house?"


You have some valid points. Though I have moved away from the modern specialist insect mentality and try to become as versatile as possible developing as many skills as possible, taking a mechanical, carpentry, electrical, first Aid EMT and other classes over the years to be as self reliant as possible. Though at some point the ability to trade goods and services would be a good thing. As an example my wife can handle most illness with local herbal remedies I can mend gashes broken bones and the like. Our local doctor will be needed for surgery and extreme injuries gunshot wounds and the like. What we have is a 900 foot hill of 20 acre lots adjoining national forest. Each lot or homestead is self sustaining. We have agreed to join forces for perimeter security which we have established as being about two miles from out homes. We have also agreed to come to each others aid in case of a perimeter breach which there are bound to be some as no system is perfect. Beyond that each homestead is a fiefdom unto itself. Trade is regulated by the parties involved. The only group decision is regarding perimeter security. On that everyone has an equal say and come to a group consensus. Beyond that we have no need for government.


----------



## LongRider

chick said:


> Survival will depend on LOCATION.
> ...............................Of course living up in Alberta, 2 hours from a big city I personally don't worry about anyone making it up this far to cause trouble once they realize what's happened to us. If we (I personally) can get through the first upheaval then I have the knowledge and supplies to survive but it would be better with the benefit of a group


Yep


Fridge said:


> I live in a rural area near a National forest in Virginia...I am all alone.


Yours is the closest to our situation. We live adjoining National Park, though we are not yet "fully" self sustaining. Perpetual self sustaining power and adequate live stock are our shortfalls. Yours is also very much the same mind set I had. Our security system was put in place with a focus towards security in our remote location in the contemporary world with an eye to EOTWAWKI. It was that, our geographically defensible location that was a major reason for buying this place. There really is only one way in. One side of the property is steep 900 foot bluff. It will become hamburger hill for anyone trying to come at us from that end. The other adjoins the park. Anyone coming from that direction need to come through nearly a million acres of wilderness over mountains rivers and wet lands. They won't be arriving in any substantial numbers. So that leaves the one dirt road that has several choke points with steep cliffs on either side. Blockades could easily be set up and nothing short of a full scale military attack with artillery support will make it through. Just a few shooters would make anyone else feel like the Persians at the battle of Thermopylae. Like you we came to realize that we couldn't do it alone. Not to manage the work load but to manage our perimeter security


Fridge said:


> I have realized that I would be better off with a few others to share the load of security, and day to day chores. It's hard to trust anyone.


And this too was our issue. Who to trust? Who do you let in? Screw trust. We let self interest decide. Over time we met our few neighbors. There are not many as two-thirds of our "hill" is undeveloped state land. We learned those that do live up here are mostly all liberty loving gun tooting northwest hillbilly ********, a LEO, couple of combat vets with a couple of loner bikers in the mix. Not alot in common except that we seem to share a desire to be left alone to do as we please self reliant and most are near self sustaining. That is who we trust because their lives and safety depends on co operation as much as ours does. So we joined together and formed a plan. We included not only the property we each currently own but also the land we use to gather wild food fish hunt and harvest. That too is "OUR" land at EOTWAWKI. May I suggest you do the same decide what land you use to sustain yourself and include that as property that you need to defend from outsiders. After all what makes it OK for anyone to "Bug Out' to territory you depend on to feed yourself


----------



## LongRider

FatTire said:


> Seriously? Ok I'll try again. I concede the sniper team example was a poor one. The point I was trying to make tho, is still valid. Loners and small groups can survive just fine, the key is mobility. The smaller the group, the more you have to keep moving.


IMO, Snipers are a highly skilled warrior necessary to defend and protect their brothers in arms, in military combat or LEO officers using the most effective means possible to protect and defend innocent citizens. Outside of that narrow definition especially in an EOTWAWKI scenario. Snipers are nothing less than spineless thieving cowards that do not even have the sack to look those they butcher in the eyes. Cowards in every sense of the word.

Snipers, marauders, raiders are all shorthand for those who have not planned or prepared seeking to take from others what they failed to provide for themselves. Armed with the intent of using force to take whatever they think they are entitled to based on their perceived needs. AKA scum of the earth parasites. They better keep moving as they are toast the instant decent men and women identify them for what they are.

Makes one hope that naked face eating zombies will evolve into naked corn holing zombies that seek out snipers to bugger as they suck their brains out of the back of their sniping skulls.


----------



## boomer

LongRider said:


> IMO, Snipers are a highly skilled warrior necessary to defend and protect their brothers in arms, in military combat or LEO officers using the most effective means possible to protect and defend innocent citizens. Outside of that narrow definition especially in an EOTWAWKI scenario. Snipers are nothing less than spineless thieving cowards that do not even have the sack to look those they butcher in the eyes. Cowards in every sense of the word.
> 
> Snipers, marauders, raiders are all shorthand for those who have not planned or prepared seeking to take from others what they failed to provide for themselves. Armed with the intent of using force to take whatever they think they are entitled to based on their perceived needs. AKA scum of the earth parasites. They better keep moving as they are toast the instant decent men and women identify them for what they are.
> 
> Makes one hope that naked face eating zombies will evolve into naked corn holing zombies that seek out snipers to bugger as they suck their brains out of the back of their sniping skulls.


Ouch! Freightened people tend to be more dangerous than those who are able to trust others. Not sure this is likely to get anyone to relax enough to consider making a positive contribution to a group.


----------



## LongRider

boomer said:


> Ouch! Freightened people tend to be more dangerous than those who are able to trust others. Not sure this is likely to get anyone to relax enough to consider making a positive contribution to a group.


Sorry not sure I am grasping your point.

Are you suggesting we not be concerned about people whose survival plan is to hide and assassinate anyone who has whatever they feel they are entitled too? Or that we should somehow seek to appease them by giving each to their needs what they want so that they agree to provide the service of not slaughtering us in our sleep. Maybe have our wives keep them busy while we sleep, give them first crack at our baby girl or bend over and grab our ankles if that is their bent? Hell in the spirit of co operative trust we can offer them our premier hollow points that do not over penetrate so that we do not have to watch our children's face explode in a cloud of pink mist in front of us.

Probably got it all wrong as I said I am not getting your point.


----------



## ContinualHarvest

It depends on the situation. If our family for some reason does not survive the initial event, I'll have to go it alone. If family survives, we'll meet up and pool resources. Bug out bags are packed and ready to go.


----------



## bigpaul

ContinualHarvest said:


> It depends on the situation. If our family for some reason does not survive the initial event, I'll have to go it alone. If family survives, we'll meet up and pool resources. Bug out bags are packed and ready to go.


depends on the situation, if some form of pandemic then not all members of a family will survive, you may well be on your own in that case. i prefer the lone or couple scenario myself, i dont really like other people very much and would rather be on my own, less people means less supplies needed, less people wont be noticed as much as a larger group will, less people leave less tracks etc.etc. keep my head down until all the madness and mayhem subsides.


----------



## ContinualHarvest

bigpaul said:


> depends on the situation, if some form of pandemic then not all members of a family will survive, you may well be on your own in that case. i prefer the lone or couple scenario myself, i dont really like other people very much and would rather be on my own, less people means less supplies needed, less people wont be noticed as much as a larger group will, less people leave less tracks etc.etc. keep my head down until all the madness and mayhem subsides.


I can see your logic. After the initial madness dies down though, helping others is a good thing. Just don't let them find out everything you have put away. For example if bugging in and the neighbor stops by because they are hungry, let them only see you use a half empty quart jar of rice, not the 200lbs you have sealed away. Appearances are everything. Then ask them about a skill the can use to benefit you.
We'll need each other's skills as one man cannot master every skill.


----------



## bigpaul

ContinualHarvest said:


> I can see your logic. After the initial madness dies down though, helping others is a good thing. Just don't let them find out everything you have put away. For example if bugging in and the neighbor stops by because they are hungry, let them only see you use a half empty quart jar of rice, not the 200lbs you have sealed away. Appearances are everything. Then ask them about a skill the can use to benefit you.
> We'll need each other's skills as one man cannot master every skill.


yes, i think after the madness subsides then we will enter into a bartering economy, however i would be wary of coming out into a market place too soon just in case it isnt all over just yet.


----------



## LongRider

bigpaul said:


> yes, i think after the madness subsides then we will enter into a bartering economy, however i would be wary of coming out into a market place too soon just in case it isn't all over just yet.


*IF* The madness subsides. In Bosnia it escalated for years without outside intervention it most likely would have continued to get worst. In Sudan the madness has grown for over two decades to post apocalyptic visions of marauding hoards rampaging through the countryside.

It is quite possible the insanity will continue until the population is so sparse the predator population can not sustain itself off of the labors of others.


----------



## Anvilandhammer

I'd like to think that once things get to be real bad, and those who can't wake up( the weak) are gone, there will be two sides. Those that make their own way and those that take from them. Those that take are probably ill equipped with useful skills in comparison to the other side, but they have no problems using violence and grouping up. While those that make their own are better off, we tend to be more distrustful, and lose in the numbers game. If all the people that wouldn't dare kill or steal for a meal could band up together quickly with a zero tolerance mentality towards those that do, I believe all the chaos would settle down pretty quick. If anyone has ever read Dies The Fire, the Bearkillers come to mind. After all tech. and even gunpowder stops working they "recruited" anyone with useful skills and made a sort of militaristic mercenary community. They would go and kill mauraders and thieves in return for food and supplies as they worked towards being able to provide for themselves. Call me a dreamer, but that's the way to go. Why create a community and wait to be a victim? Create a community and go stomp out the baddies before they get you.


----------



## LongRider

Anvilandhammer said:


> Why create a community and wait to be a victim? Create a community and go stomp out the baddies before they get you.


Living our lives as we see fit without unwanted intrusions, is not waiting to be a victim. We do what we can to be self sustaining, secure our perimeter and live in harmony with those around us. If someone or group wants to violate the sanctity of our homes or territory than they will reap just rewards. But to needlessly go out looking for trouble has never been a sound tactic in my experience. Merely stepping outside of our territory may make us the bad guys the intruders. Than, how do you tell the bad guys from the good? Anyone not part of my group?

I live by live and let live now I intend on doing the same after it hits the fan. I don't take crap from anyone, I don't tolerate crap, I don't give anyone crap. I am not in the crap business now and have no intention of getting into the crap business than.

As I said if someone wants to violate the sanctity of my turf or home it is a whole different ball game, shame on them. Barring that I see no reason to go looking for them


----------



## zookeeper

_"Friends, Romans, countrymen."_ I began this thread out of curiosity, yet learned so much more. I will apply the comments here to my own conditions. Good points from all sides.


----------



## Anvilandhammer

I agree with you LR. That statement did come across wrong. By no means would I want to go out and start hurting people because they could possibly be a threat. With no moral justification i would be just as bad as i would be assuming them to be. On the other hand, if someone(s) have proven to be a threat, for example if a group stole from or beat or murdered my neighbor in a shitty fan scenario, then I would much rather bring the fight to them then wait and see if they come for me next. I am only trying to stress the importance of groups over individuals.


----------

