# Preppers become world-wide leaders



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

I work in non-profit and have travelled in some of the poorest places in the world. In these third-world countries everything is falling down, covered in trash, etc. It was odd to me that they don't constantly work to make their world a better place, but I discovered that it is because there is no real gain. No one is going to compensate them for their labor.

That leads me to a thought. In event of TEOTWAWKI the only people well stocked with the essential needs are going to be preppers. I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community. 

We would hit a point where we could hide our supplies and go underground, causing the community we live in to fall into a similar situation to what I described in third-world countries, OR we could lead the masses to rebuild by offering vital essentials as compensation. We could be the only thing keeping the world from completely falling apart.

Any thoughts?


----------



## goshengirl (Dec 18, 2010)

I like the idea. But what comes first to my mind is, 'I don't have enough preps to go around.'

Your point is excellent that people who are prepared for the collapse could become leaders after the collapse. All the more reason to know who has the means to do so, because they will become the puppet masters. I wish I could be more positive, but there it is.

Besides not having preps on a large enough scale to go around, there's also the issue that preppers tend to be independent-minded (one has to be to not be a sheeple). In order to pool enough resources together in a post-collapse world, we would need a collective of preppers, and I don't see that happening...


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

I only have enough for me and my family. In a post-collapse world community projects aren't going to matter much by then anyway.

If I was a billionaire I might be able to feed and arm the city of 20,000 that I live in. But that would only draw the attention of the government who would probably come in and take what we had.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

While those with the foresight to prepare may be ahead of a recovery curve, there is a lot more to leadership than foresight.

In fact, I might caution people to be wary of anyone who attempts to assert themselves as a leaders. In desperate times, people will cling to anyone who seems to provide answers and direction. True leaders will rise to the occasion when needed.


----------



## TechAdmin (Oct 1, 2008)

keepitsimple said:


> I work in non-profit and have travelled in some of the poorest places in the world. In these third-world countries everything is falling down, covered in trash, etc. It was odd to me that they don't constantly work to make their world a better place, but I discovered that it is because there is no real gain. No one is going to compensate them for their labor.
> 
> That leads me to a thought. In event of TEOTWAWKI the only people well stocked with the essential needs are going to be preppers. I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there's more issues than just compensation.

If I knew everything I did was going to be followed by someone destroying it I might be more included to just not do it.

But I agree, when the grasshoppers get hungry the ants will be king.


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

Our rural 'neighborhood' has talked about post-SHTF and projects we could work together on, like community wheat fields or even hay to feed horses (work animals and transportation), however sooner or later one will say something out of another's earshot about so-and-so won't do their share of the work, and so-and-so has more kids than anyone else so they'd want more than their share, and so on.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> I work in non-profit and have travelled in some of the poorest places in the world. In these third-world countries everything is falling down, covered in trash, etc. It was odd to me that they don't constantly work to make their world a better place, but I discovered that it is because there is no real gain. No one is going to compensate them for their labor.
> 
> That leads me to a thought. In event of TEOTWAWKI the only people well stocked with the essential needs are going to be preppers. I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community.
> 
> ...


 Nothing personal but we need help ourselves.Soon we will be just like these places you go to give your service to,charity begins at home,your nations dying.
Running around the world trying to help people who live in cultures of violence is foolish,imo.All we do is feed their enemies and build up armies against them.In the long run we cause more persecution of the ones we try to help.
Also its like losing your job and having problems feeding your own,then going to the homeless shelter and bringing in many more to feed. :nuts:
These do gooders are filling up this nation with more to feed and care for.Especially the catholic church who brings in millions from latan nations then puts them on welfare for others to feed.
What part of we are broke and going under don't people get!


----------



## boomer (Jul 13, 2011)

Ten or twenty thousand people in need of food is not the insurmountable problem if they are prepared to work under the direction of someone who knows what they need to be doing.

I grew up on a grain farm and the neighbor raised cattle using the land that would not grow grain, and the grain that was generally of insufficient quality to sell for human consumption.

Both farms had chickens.

And my point is that standing on the dirt road between the two farms in the fall after harvest there was right there, immediate capacity to feed probably ten thousand people.

The problems arise when people are not prepared to do the difficult manual work required to hand process all that meat and grain. Without the transportation, the processing plants, processing food so it can be eaten is rather extensive work. 

Most do not have the knowledge nor the willingness to do the work required. Money will not help with providing food that was not produced because people will not do the work. And confiscation of the food that does exist will only work once.

And then there is the preparation work, and the direct work of producing the next round of food after SHTF because without the massive equipment and inputs currently being used, producing the next crop is also a great deal of work by the people who are actually going to eat it.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

gypsysue said:


> Our rural 'neighborhood' has talked about post-SHTF and projects we could work together on, like community wheat fields or even hay to feed horses (work animals and transportation), however sooner or later one will say something out of another's earshot about so-and-so won't do their share of the work, and so-and-so has more kids than anyone else so they'd want more than their share, and so on.


 Exactly! Even families will turn on each other WTSHTF.Inlaws and outlaws will be like the Hatfields and McCoys.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

keepitsimple said:


> I work in non-profit and have travelled in some of the poorest places in the world. In these third-world countries everything is falling down, covered in trash, etc. It was odd to me that they don't constantly work to make their world a better place, but I discovered that it is because there is no real gain. No one is going to compensate them for their labor.
> 
> That leads me to a thought. In event of TEOTWAWKI the only people well stocked with the essential needs are going to be preppers. I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community.
> 
> ...


You are essentially talking about seizing the opportunity to create your own feudal system by installing yourself at the top and insisting that your vassals follow your orders in exchange for your protection and direction. I understand that this is not your immediate intention, but that will be the result.

Nothing wrong with that, per se, but understand that this is what you are proposing.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Turtle said:


> . True leaders will rise to the occasion when needed.


I humbly submit the president and congress as stellar examples of 'leaders'.




Turtle said:


> You are essentially talking about seizing the opportunity to create your own feudal system by installing yourself at the top and insisting that your vassals follow your orders in exchange for your protection and direction. I understand that this is not your immediate intention, but that will be the result.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that, per se, but understand that this is what you are proposing.


All hail our future overlord, Emperor Keepitsimple!

I am no leader of anyone. I aint even the leader of my household. I am the packmule. My ideas/thoughts are pretty abstract.
I agree with all who said they dont want to attract attention.
I only wish I lived in some kind of community where we would band together for any reason, food, defense, hell a pickup bball game.
We have a shared driveway, and we have lived here the longest of the 4 houses, and we dont know our neighbors. We like it that way. I would feel better if I knew them come SHTF, but I cant imagine anyone thinking the way I do.

I have also been to some third world countries, and hell even S.E. (Southeast Washington DC, some not so nice places down there) where whole areas are run down. In SE, I assume that people just dont care, and see it as someone elses responsibility to clean up the mess.
I dont understand why people with no job in a third world country wouldnt at least clean up the trash in their neighborhoods.
My father is in Nicaragua right now building houses for the extremely poor who have nothing. I went with him 2 years ago, and it was the most incredible experience I've ever had. the work was insanely grueling working in 95 degree weather with 90% humidity in the jungle. The joy we brought to these peoples lives was truly uplifting, and that was the reward in itself.
Seeing trash all over the place seemed very odd to me. For the most part, they had very little else to do, why not clean up after yourself?


----------



## naturesmagick (Aug 2, 2011)

Keep It Simple... I applaud you and strength and forethought to put it out here on the public forum. You are correct preppers and that mentality will survive and thrive and they will ultimately do so through sharing and teaching. I am an ardent proponent of being prepared not just with food storage but with know how of the basic life skills as basic as how to build a fire w/out matches. I do assert as well that we get what we create, while I don't run around advertising and boasting of my preps I do acknowledge them and in doing so show others there is a way to thrive. Thanks for the positive note we often get so caught up in the what ifs or when this happens we forget we are always creating, create what you want.


----------



## Possumfam (Apr 19, 2011)

It's a great thought, but I think of the entitlement mentality people have now. If they won't work for it today, will they work for it tomorrow? Many want something for nothing, so...


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> I humbly submit the president and congress as stellar examples of 'leaders'.
> 
> 
> All hail our future overlord, Emperor Keepitsimple!
> ...


 CULTURE,VALUES.You will never understand or change it.Only they can change their lifestyles and future.
I don't have to go to these places I know others who visit all over the world for security reasons,where armed guards take them around.
The food and supplies usually get into the hands of the peopels persecuters.
Its beginning to happen here already.many brought into our nation 'refugees' return their nations militant camps 'on our dime'to train to kill our stupid ass!


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

goshengirl said:


> Besides not having preps on a large enough scale to go around, there's also the issue that preppers tend to be independent-minded (one has to be to not be a sheeple). In order to pool enough resources together in a post-collapse world, we would need a collective of preppers, and I don't see that happening...


You make a great point, but lets say it for what it is. After reading many of your thoughts the overwhelming consensus is "F*** everyone else I am taking care of me!" (With a few exceptions) Do none of y'all recognize that it is that exact mentality that is leading to the collapse of our country?



Turtle said:


> While those with the foresight to prepare may be ahead of a recovery curve, there is a lot more to leadership than foresight.
> 
> In fact, I might caution people to be wary of anyone who attempts to assert themselves as a leaders. In desperate times, people will cling to anyone who seems to provide answers and direction. True leaders will rise to the occasion when needed.


A good point Turtle, but without leaders their is no order at all. I agree we should always be cautious of leaders and not follow mindlessly, but if no one follows then you have no order ... hopefully I don't have to argue that order is necessary. We will have the position to lead (not dictate) in order to create order out of chaos.



gypsysue said:


> Our rural 'neighborhood' has talked about post-SHTF and projects we could work together on, like community wheat fields or even hay to feed horses (work animals and transportation), however sooner or later one will say something out of another's earshot about so-and-so won't do their share of the work, and so-and-so has more kids than anyone else so they'd want more than their share, and so on.


Of course you will. I didn't mean to imply that we would have the opportunity to return to the Garden of Eden and live happily in bliss (although I am totally pro-nudity :2thumb: ) That doesn't mean that community doesn't work. There will be problems in any system, but the desire to create a system is necessary.



Meerkat said:


> Nothing personal but we need help ourselves.Soon we will be just like these places you go to give your service to,charity begins at home,your nations dying.
> Running around the world trying to help people who live in cultures of violence is foolish,imo.All we do is feed their enemies and build up armies against them.In the long run we cause more persecution of the ones we try to help.
> Also its like losing your job and having problems feeding your own,then going to the homeless shelter and bringing in many more to feed. :nuts:
> These do gooders are filling up this nation with more to feed and care for.Especially the catholic church who brings in millions from latan nations then puts them on welfare for others to feed.
> What part of we are broke and going under don't people get!


I don't even know how to respond to this ... IMAO you are insane. I assume you are one of them that is hoping for Armageddon just so you can shoot people. That being said, I will give it a shot.

Even in the economic crisis we are currently in, the poorest American (ie Homeless living under a bridge) is still in the top 20% of the world's wealth. Your inference that anyone showing compassion is driving us to becoming broke is insane and if people buy into your selfish ideals then we will lose all control and you will get your chance to go on a shooting spree.

If we lose all of our ethics, morals and compassion than we are no more than savages ... scratch that, we would be less than savages. We would be less than animals. There is no example of the selfishness you are describing.



Turtle said:


> You are essentially talking about seizing the opportunity to create your own feudal system by installing yourself at the top and insisting that your vassals follow your orders in exchange for your protection and direction. I understand that this is not your immediate intention, but that will be the result.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that, per se, but understand that this is what you are proposing.


hahaha That is a slightly pessimistic way to state it, but ya I guess there is truth in it. Without our forefathers doing a similar task we would not have these great United States of America.



Immolatus said:


> All hail our future overlord, Emperor Keepitsimple!
> 
> I am no leader of anyone. I aint even the leader of my household. I am the packmule. My ideas/thoughts are pretty abstract.
> I agree with all who said they dont want to attract attention.
> ...


You better have saluted me or you are the first one cutoff from supplies. 

I am not suggesting that all preppers will have to become leaders or we will all die. I am suggesting that we will be in a position of authority whether we meant to be or not.



Immolatus said:


> I have also been to some third world countries, and hell even S.E. (Southeast Washington DC, some not so nice places down there) where whole areas are run down. In SE, I assume that people just dont care, and see it as someone elses responsibility to clean up the mess.
> I dont understand why people with no job in a third world country wouldnt at least clean up the trash in their neighborhoods.
> My father is in Nicaragua right now building houses for the extremely poor who have nothing. I went with him 2 years ago, and it was the most incredible experience I've ever had. the work was insanely grueling working in 95 degree weather with 90% humidity in the jungle. The joy we brought to these peoples lives was truly uplifting, and that was the reward in itself.
> Seeing trash all over the place seemed very odd to me. For the most part, they had very little else to do, why not clean up after yourself?


You are one of the few people who probably really knows what I am talking about. I don't know why they don't do the obvious things we would think to do like pick up the trash. I assume it is because of a lack of compensation and/or reward, but they are just assumptions. I'm sure there is far more to it.



naturesmagick said:


> Keep It Simple... I applaud you and strength and forethought to put it out here on the public forum. You are correct preppers and that mentality will survive and thrive and they will ultimately do so through sharing and teaching. I am an ardent proponent of being prepared not just with food storage but with know how of the basic life skills as basic as how to build a fire w/out matches. I do assert as well that we get what we create, while I don't run around advertising and boasting of my preps I do acknowledge them and in doing so show others there is a way to thrive. Thanks for the positive note we often get so caught up in the what ifs or when this happens we forget we are always creating, create what you want.


Thank you Naturesmagick! Maybe there are a few optimists with me in this crowd afterall. :2thumb:



Possumfam said:


> It's a great thought, but I think of the entitlement mentality people have now. If they won't work for it today, will they work for it tomorrow? Many want something for nothing, so...


Agreed. That is the biggest problem in our country/culture. I think if we stopped giving everything to them then they would start working to earn it, because the alternative would be death (in the case of food and water). That or they would learn to go without which the obesity in our country suggests would not be a bad thing.



Meerkat said:


> CULTURE,VALUES.You will never understand or change it.Only they can change their lifestyles and future.
> I don't have to go to these places I know others who visit all over the world for security reasons,where armed guards take them around.
> The food and supplies usually get into the hands of the peopels persecuters.
> Its beginning to happen here already.many brought into our nation 'refugees' return their nations militant camps 'on our dime'to train to kill our stupid ass!


You have listened to too many pessimist friends. Within international food-aid less than 5% is stolen (or gets "into the hands of the people's persecuters.") Granted that is still way too much, but it also means 95% is entering the bellies of the people starving to death. (Please no one challenge whether they are starving to death. I have seen it with my own eyes and will post pictures if questioned.) You also assume that everyone has the ability to "change it." While in our country that is true because we are free. Other countries do not offer the same opportunities.

Sorry to all for the ridiculously long reply


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

KeepItSimple, after reading all the posts again I think that some will be followed because they are leaders. A true leader is a leader because people will follow them. People trust them and know they are better off standing behind them (in the sense of supporting them). Someone that just wants to lord over people is not a leader, they are a ruler. Not all rulers are leaders. I will lead if put in a leadership position because thats how I was raised but I am not going to be going out and looking for people to boss around. You are correct, there will be a lot of folks looking for local leaders to emerge to show them what to do. You are correct that there is a place for preppers in that but taking that responsibility is a huge deal and needs long and hard consideration. If you are of that calibur, I salute you, but as others have said being a prepper doesnt a leader make.

As for the thoughts on third world (or first world) countries and why they dont even just pick up after themselves: I think it has a lot to do with folks not taking responsibility for the way they live, their surroundings, their situation. In some cases this is because they dont have the freedom which should result in their taking responsibility. In other cases I think it is actually their culture to deny responsibility and leave everything to someone else to do. I can see our culture moving in that direction. I see so many homes with trash all around them -- nobody keeps up with their own stuff. Ive been in other folks houses and they arent just unkept, they are GROSS! I am responsible for the upkeep of my home, for looking my best when I walk out the door. I dont leave trash laying around. If I go camping I leave the site cleaner than I found it. If I am at someones house I clean up after myself. If I use a public restroom I flush the toilet and throw away my paper towels in the wastebasket. Its how I was brought up -- to take responsibility for my actions, my surroundings, etc.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Keep it Simple I see your the Pied Piper of 'Rules For Radicals';
if you can't win an argument with the truth and facts,than just accuse and make your opponant look bad with lies;if this does'nt work bring ou the race card;and of course the all mighty claim that the person your aguring with is a terrorist or wants to " SHOOT AND KILL PEOPLE".I've never advacated volence here.
Are you an illegal or just a one world promoting socialist? Either way this is still america,liberals have'nt completely destroyed it yet and we are called a nation because we have our own culture,language ,values and borders.Now go back to where ever you can do the most harm and leave us IN PEACE.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

naturesmagick said:


> Keep It Simple... I applaud you and strength and forethought to put it out here on the public forum. You are correct preppers and that mentality will survive and thrive and they will ultimately do so through sharing and teaching. I am an ardent proponent of being prepared not just with food storage but with know how of the basic life skills as basic as how to build a fire w/out matches. I do assert as well that we get what we create, while I don't run around advertising and boasting of my preps I do acknowledge them and in doing so show others there is a way to thrive. Thanks for the positive note we often get so caught up in the what ifs or when this happens we forget we are always creating, create what you want.


 I'm sure you do agree,since you came along bout the same time as your adversary here did.
Unlike whatever group or place yall came from,we Americans don't think another man should be forced to provide for us,thats communism.
Charity is a choice,a free act of giving.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> KeepItSimple, after reading all the posts again I think that some will be followed because they are leaders. A true leader is a leader because people will follow them. People trust them and know they are better off standing behind them (in the sense of supporting them). Someone that just wants to lord over people is not a leader, they are a ruler. Not all rulers are leaders. I will lead if put in a leadership position because thats how I was raised but I am not going to be going out and looking for people to boss around. You are correct, there will be a lot of folks looking for local leaders to emerge to show them what to do. You are correct that there is a place for preppers in that but taking that responsibility is a huge deal and needs long and hard consideration. If you are of that calibur, I salute you, but as others have said being a prepper doesnt a leader make.
> 
> As for the thoughts on third world (or first world) countries and why they dont even just pick up after themselves: I think it has a lot to do with folks not taking responsibility for the way they live, their surroundings, their situation. In some cases this is because they dont have the freedom which should result in their taking responsibility. In other cases I think it is actually their culture to deny responsibility and leave everything to someone else to do. I can see our culture moving in that direction. I see so many homes with trash all around them -- nobody keeps up with their own stuff. Ive been in other folks houses and they arent just unkept, they are GROSS! I am responsible for the upkeep of my home, for looking my best when I walk out the door. I dont leave trash laying around. If I go camping I leave the site cleaner than I found it. If I am at someones house I clean up after myself. If I use a public restroom I flush the toilet and throw away my paper towels in the wastebasket. Its how I was brought up -- to take responsibility for my actions, my surroundings, etc.


All solid points and I agree that not everyone is built to be a leader of multitudes. You are also accurately pointing out that leaders do not chose to be leaders, but are made leaders because people start following them. I think it is very likely that when TEOTWAWKI comes, we preppers will be forced into positions of leadership because other people will start to follow us as examples. Instead of hiding in bunkers shooting everyone that looks to us for leadership because we are paranoid that they are going to gut us and take all of our possessions, we should view it as a responsibility to continue leading through example (and possibly from a position of authority).


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

Meerkat said:


> Keep it Simple I see your the Pied Piper of 'Rules For Radicals';
> if you can't win an argument with the truth and facts,than just accuse and make your opponant look bad with lies;if this does'nt work bring ou the race card;and of course the all mighty claim that the person your aguring with is a terrorist or wants to " SHOOT AND KILL PEOPLE".I've never advacated volence here.
> Are you an illegal or just a one world promoting socialist? Either way this is still america,liberals have'nt completely destroyed it yet and we are called a nation because we have our own culture,language ,values and borders.Now go back to where ever you can do the most harm and leave us IN PEACE.





Meerkat said:


> I'm sure you do agree,since you came along bout the same time as your adversary here did.
> Unlike whatever group or place yall came from,we Americans don't think another man should be forced to provide for us,thats communism.
> Charity is a choice,a free act of giving.


Your politics must be very challenged if you have pinned me for a communist, socialist, liberal, or even moderate. I am about as ultra-conservative as you get. All be it, looking over my original response to you it was harsh and you have accurately accused me of attacking. My apologies.

I'll let the rest of what I have said stand for itself.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> Your politics must be very challenged if you have pinned me for a communist, socialist, liberal, or even moderate. I am about as ultra-conservative as you get. All be it, looking over my original response to you it was harsh and you have accurately accused me of attacking. My apologies.
> 
> I'll let the rest of what I have said stand for itself.


 And stand it will.Your no conservative,much less ultra conservative.Your views do speak for for themselves,that we can agree on.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

So.... anyway.... ummmm... lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*I talked to a man*

I spoke with a man today who had a farm and a lot of cattle.
the conversation turned to what would happen in a SHTF situation with hungry people coming out of citys.
He said he had enough cattle to get by but my question was what will you feed them? He stated that he had sufficent pasture to allow them to graze but he would have to bring them in close to prevent people from killing them.

I remembered the Bible and how people with flocks and cattle had herdsmen to watch over them at night. There was a reason that the Shepards lived in the feild with the Sheep.

Sombody is going to have to stay up and outside to watch the live stock when this happens or it will disapear fast.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

BillM said:


> I spoke with a man today who had a farm and a lot of cattle.
> the conversation turned to what would happen in a SHTF situation with hungry people coming out of citys.
> He said he had enough cattle to get by but my question was what will you feed them? He stated that he had sufficent pasture to allow them to graze but he would have to bring them in close to prevent people from killing them.
> 
> ...


 Another reason I don't have large animals,eggs will do us just fine,if it gets real bad we may eat a few chickens if we get a roo.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

BillM said:


> I spoke with a man today who had a farm and a lot of cattle.
> the conversation turned to what would happen in a SHTF situation with hungry people coming out of citys.
> He said he had enough cattle to get by but my question was what will you feed them? He stated that he had sufficent pasture to allow them to graze but he would have to bring them in close to prevent people from killing them.
> 
> ...


At least now we have ipods to keep us company


----------



## horseman09 (Mar 2, 2010)

keepitsimple said:


> I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. *We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community. *
> Any thoughts?


You would need the manpower and weapons to defend your vast resources so you could allocate them as you see fit. Otherwise, your resources would simply be taken from you and you would wind up dead.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

horseman09 said:


> You would need the manpower and weapons to defend your vast resources so you could allocate them as you see fit. Otherwise, your resources would simply be taken from you and you would wind up dead.


Right, which is why I said that taking a role as a leader by doling out supplies would lead to feudalism. That is certainly not a bad thing; people just need to be aware of what sort of king they serve.

If you stand at the top of the food chain, and delegate who will become a worker (serf), who will stand guard and protect the workers, buildings, and land (knights), and who will be responsible for overseeing the workers and protectors and repaying a portion of their proceeds back to you for organizing them (vassals/lords), you have effectively recreated the feudal system. *That is not a bad thing*. So long as one is not a serf! 

The feudal system worked for hundreds of years . . . because it works. There is nothing wrong with it so long as people know their place, do their work, and shut up.  The problem lies in the fact that there is very little freedom of movement and very little upward mobility. It was not unheard of for lower classes to improve their station in life, but it was exceedingly rare and certainly the exception to the rule. Yeomen could become minor lords, minor lords could become greater lords, lords could become kings, etcetera.

With all of this in mind, I see know reason why those who are prepared to survive could also be prepared to outfit an army and begin giving orders to reconstruct; however, there is no guarantee that the guy with the most guns to hand out will be the best leader. This is why I said that leaders generally rise to the occasion, as opposed to planning and seeking power and glory.

So, if the situation were to call for you to become a leader, be prepared. But remain aware of why you have power; not for power's sake, but to help people survive and thrive.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Somalia*

Everyone knows about somalia and how the war lords control the food donated by international sorces.

Want to know how it all came about?

Somalia was a farming region but they had a drought. They had suffered through droughts many times befor in their history.

This time , we came to the rescue with free food. we provided this free food for several years and when the drought ended we were still providing free food.

As a result the farmers, who could no longer sell their produce , just stopped growing food, (after all food was now free!)

The war lords now well provisioned and aided by idle people stole the food and claimed the country.

How big of a favor did we do them? :scratch


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

When I read the OP's first post I thought he was describing one of Jerry's PAW stories. Some dude with 20 years of food and thousands of gold and silver coins being the key regional figure who employs the helpless locals to do what he wants in return for food and PMs.

Makes for good fiction but what's to stop the group from simply talking over the homestead/farm/etc. If it's you bringing in a bunch of people to work it then you're now vastly out numbered. Unless of course you hire a bunch of security folk... but then what's to stop them from taking over? Especially since they got weapons. 

I believe it is more likely it's going to be local communities that can work together to surving SHTF or like minded people finding each other and then banding together. 

There is also the consideration of promise and work/reward ratio. "Hey, come work my fields and I'll give you food"... "What food? The fields are bare.".... "Well after you till and plant and care for and harvest my fields then there will be food and you can have some."... "Why wouldn't I just go do my own field and then I can have all instead of some?"... etc.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

BillM said:


> Everyone knows about somalia and how the war lords control the food donated by international sorces.
> 
> Want to know how it all came about?
> 
> ...


THANK YOU for pointing out the big, fat, lazy elephant in the room taking a giant crap on the coffee table; that nobody wants to talk about.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

CulexPipiens said:


> There is also the consideration of promise and work/reward ratio. "Hey, come work my fields and I'll give you food"... "What food? The fields are bare.".... "Well after you till and plant and care for and harvest my fields then there will be food and you can have some."... "Why wouldn't *I just go do my own field and then I can have it all* instead of some?"... etc.


IF people would actually do *that*, this discussion would be moot 

< 2% of the population provides 100% of the food in the US (not taking into acct the VAST quantities of imported foods) I have nearly 4 acres planted & I *still* don't produce all of the food I eat

The compensation/reward would have to come from current preps & therefore solve the immediate problem, unfortunately most do not understand that even the largest cache will eventually run out. IMO this is why the 'magic' 1 yr (sometimes 2) of preps seems to be so prolific as a goal in the discussions; hopefully within 1 yr the worst of a catastrophic situation will have passed and a person (group) could be on the way towards self-sufficiency with enough redundancy to overcome lesser, but still harsh future events. If not, perhaps the initial 'event' is impossible to recover from, something was not considered while 'prepping', or maybe just some bad luck. I personally don't want my stores brought down 'to the wire' such that life becomes a Sisyphean struggle with no opportunity to improve for myself nor my posterity.


----------



## Emerald (Jun 14, 2010)

Apocalypse and the Beauty Queen.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

BillM said:


> Everyone knows about somalia and how the war lords control the food donated by international sorces.
> 
> Want to know how it all came about?
> 
> ...


 Nice story ,Bill.Also very true.Maybe thats how McDonalds bought up millions of acres of crop land to graze their dollar menu? 
Sometimes the rich bring good things to poor nations,mostly they take more than they give.Just like the churches in some cases.Spread the word then here comes the radicals sreading the sword.its a terrible vicious circle since time began and arabs came in in the 1500s.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

Turtle said:


> So, if the situation were to call for you to become a leader, be prepared. But remain aware of why you have power; not for power's sake, but to help people survive and thrive.


My thoughts exactly :2thumb:



BillM said:


> Everyone knows about somalia and how the war lords control the food donated by international sorces.
> Want to know how it all came about?
> Somalia was a farming region but they had a drought. They had suffered through droughts many times befor in their history.
> This time , we came to the rescue with free food. we provided this free food for several years and when the drought ended we were still providing free food.
> ...





The_Blob said:


> THANK YOU for pointing out the big, fat, lazy elephant in the room taking a giant crap on the coffee table; that nobody wants to talk about.


Several of you have suggested humanitarian-aid is worthless by giving examples of how it failed and/or backfired. Very good points and accurate points. I don't dispute any of them and I agree that the system should be improved (mainly by getting all of the politics out of aid), but for every one of these horror stories there are 95 stories where humanitarian-aid has saved the lives of entire communities.

Are y'all claiming that it would be better to say "F you all! You're on your own" when there is some sort of disaster? We did that for a long time during WWII and it eventually became real clear that we can't just chill in America and let the rest of the world fend for themselves. We are far too much of a worldwide community for that to be a legitimate possibility.


----------



## Clarice (Aug 19, 2010)

When the balloon goes up there will be so much work to do we will be too busy to worry about things that don't matter. If someone comes to me hungry and willing to work for their supper, I will feed them. If they just want a handout they are not hungry enough and can just move on down the road.


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

Sixty years ago it might have been possible to get people to work for their supper, but today's entitlement society has changed all that. Besides, I can't see people from the city doing any really hard, physical work and they lack the skills anyway.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

kejmack said:


> Sixty years ago it might have been possible to get people to work for their supper, but today's entitlement society has changed all that. Besides, I can't see people from the city doing any really hard, physical work and they lack the skills anyway.


Agreed with your first part, but the lacking of skills shouldn't be an issue. Doesn't take long to train someone to dig a ditch, carry a bucket, overturn soil or chop firewood. They just have to want to do the work for the reward. Although if they truly are that hungry, how much work can they do before collapsing?


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> Several of you have suggested humanitarian-aid is worthless by giving examples of how it failed and/or backfired. Very good points and accurate points. I don't dispute any of them and I agree that the system should be improved (mainly by getting all of the politics out of aid), but for every one of these horror stories there are 95 stories where humanitarian-aid has saved the lives of entire communities.
> 
> Are y'all claiming that it would be better to say "F you all! You're on your own" when there is some sort of disaster? We did that for a long time during WWII and it eventually became real clear that we can't just chill in America and let the rest of the world fend for themselves. We are far too much of a worldwide community for that to be a legitimate possibility.


When it comes to my own preparations there is only so much humanitarian aid I can offer before I am taking it from the folks who sacrificed to prepare with me (my family). The same thing is true for international humanitarian aid. I would argue that it is not the federal governments place to give our tax dollars as aid to other nations (except militarily in rare circumstances). Our taxes should be relatively low which would allow us to choose for ourselves to support groups that give humanitarian aid (Red Cross, etc). Our tax dollars should be going to repair infrastructure (state taxes) and keep our military the strongest in the world (federal taxes) with little of our taxes dollars going to anything else. Dont get me wrong though -- Im all for supporting groups that feed the starving and helpless in the world... I just think I should have a choice in how/when/why/where etc.


----------



## Clarice (Aug 19, 2010)

That's why I said I would feed them. Then they will be strong enough to work for the next meal or move along and make room for someone who truly is in need.


----------



## goshengirl (Dec 18, 2010)

My attitude definitely is not an "f... them" attitude - rather, I know that I have limited resources to be of any influence. There is no way I could spearhead any leadership role. I lack both the personality skills (prefer to lay low) and the physical resources (still working on being prepared enough for family).

Now, on a case by case basis, that's a different story. You make a good point that if we lose our morals/ethics, we lose our humanity. It has been debated on this forum whether or not to help strangers. Different folks have different reasons for both sides, and their reasons are valid. I really don't think it's an "f... them" attitude, either. The fact of the matter is, we really don't know what we're going to face, and we're going to have to take it as it comes. Someone may say they'd never trust a stranger, then find that they do just that. Someone else may say they'd help strangers, but then find the strangers to be unruly taker-mobs. We're all going to be flying by the seat of our pants.

To be totally frank (and I'm only sharing this because truthfully, I can tell this to strangers but not tell this to someone face-to-face) I have been beaten and left for dead. At least 20 people must have heard me scream but no one bothered to lift a finger to dial 911. So you will understand that while I have a desire to help people (because I know what it means to need help), I would be lying if I said this didn't color my perspective.

Obviously, I'm leaving out a lot of detail here on purpose. The point is this: we all have backgrounds. We all have experiences that lead us to think the way we do. I help people on a regular basis, but I do it through safe channels. In a SHTF world, there will be no more safe channels. If I see a stranger walking up my dirt driveway, I doubt I'll be very trusting. And after I turn them away, I will pay the price of wrestling with doubt for years, wondering whatever happened to them. But in no way will I ever think "F.... them."


----------



## Emerald (Jun 14, 2010)

goshengirl said:


> My attitude definitely is not an "f... them" attitude - rather, I know that I have limited resources to be of any influence. There is no way I could spearhead any leadership role. I lack both the personality skills (prefer to lay low) and the physical resources (still working on being prepared enough for family).
> 
> Now, on a case by case basis, that's a different story. You make a good point that if we lose our morals/ethics, we lose our humanity. It has been debated on this forum whether or not to help strangers. Different folks have different reasons for both sides, and their reasons are valid. I really don't think it's an "f... them" attitude, either. The fact of the matter is, we really don't know what we're going to face, and we're going to have to take it as it comes. Someone may say they'd never trust a stranger, then find that they do just that. Someone else may say they'd help strangers, but then find the strangers to be unruly taker-mobs. We're all going to be flying by the seat of our pants.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry that no one helped you when you needed it-I wish I had been there- I am a person who gets right in the middle of such things with the phone dialed an a big stick swinging... I have already done it twice in my life and I do not regret helping one bit. The hubby on the other hand keeps trying to make me promise that I will stop jumping in the middle of these types of situations. I couldn't. 
I would rather have to apologize to the police for calling them on a trivial matter than apologize to the family of someone I let die/get hurt. So many people are afraid of their own shadows these days where the lawyers have got us suing cuz someone farted in our own personal space.

We need to fix "us" first then think of helping others. Maybe someday our country will become so bad that Angelina Jolie will adopt an American baby.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

goshengirl said:


> My attitude definitely is not an "f... them" attitude - rather, I know that I have limited resources to be of any influence. There is no way I could spearhead any leadership role. I lack both the personality skills (prefer to lay low) and the physical resources (still working on being prepared enough for family).
> 
> Now, on a case by case basis, that's a different story. You make a good point that if we lose our morals/ethics, we lose our humanity. It has been debated on this forum whether or not to help strangers. Different folks have different reasons for both sides, and their reasons are valid. I really don't think it's an "f... them" attitude, either. The fact of the matter is, we really don't know what we're going to face, and we're going to have to take it as it comes. Someone may say they'd never trust a stranger, then find that they do just that. Someone else may say they'd help strangers, but then find the strangers to be unruly taker-mobs. We're all going to be flying by the seat of our pants.
> 
> ...


:congrat: to you, you're a better person than I am

my pregnant GF (I was paying on a ring at the time) was murdered a few years ago by a sociopath that stabbed her over 50 times and let her bleed out... "nobody saw or heard anything"... so yeah, I'm a little angry with my fellow man


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

It is a common psychological phenomenon. People will not call the police because they assume someone else has called, or they don't want to get involved. I happens all over the country. Police departments have been struggling with the problem since Kitty Genovese was murdered in 1964. 38 people stood by for over an hour and did nothing to save her.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

kejmack said:


> It is a common psychological phenomenon. People will not call the police because they assume someone else has called, or they don't want to get involved. I happens all over the country. Police departments have been struggling with the problem since Kitty Genovese was murdered in 1964. 38 people stood by for over an hour and did nothing to save her.


Thats sad! We need folks that will take responsibility. A freedom loving people should strive to be responsible. I guess that kind reveals our love for freedom as a nation... again "sad"!


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

I think it will not be a question of preppers being the new world leaders. I think it will be more like "The Book of Eli" where the people who control the resources (water, fuel, etc) will be the ones who can control the population.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

kejmack said:


> I think it will not be a question of preppers being the new world leaders. I think it will be more like "The Book of Eli" where the people who control the resources (water, fuel, etc) will be the ones who can control the population.


Which would be another reason to be prepping so that you can be free an not controlled, right?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

TheAnt said:


> Which would be another reason to be prepping so that you can be free an not controlled, right?


Ever seen "The Postman"? Great flick. The badguy is a copier salesman who is in the right place at the right time when things go south, takes control of a bunch of people looking for anyone to take the lead, and that snowballs in to a dictatorship where he steamrolls over anyone who disagrees with him and his plans. _That_ is the dark side of what I foresee happening.

In that sort of scenario, it doesn't matter if you have supplies for yourself or not, because unless you can stand up to his marauding army, you are still screwed.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> When it comes to my own preparations there is only so much humanitarian aid I can offer before I am taking it from the folks who sacrificed to prepare with me (my family). The same thing is true for international humanitarian aid. I would argue that it is not the federal governments place to give our tax dollars as aid to other nations (except militarily in rare circumstances). Our taxes should be relatively low which would allow us to choose for ourselves to support groups that give humanitarian aid (Red Cross, etc). Our tax dollars should be going to repair infrastructure (state taxes) and keep our military the strongest in the world (federal taxes) with little of our taxes dollars going to anything else. Dont get me wrong though -- Im all for supporting groups that feed the starving and helpless in the world... I just think I should have a choice in how/when/why/where etc.


I can't argue with that. It is definitely not our governments responsibility or right to use our taxes on humanitarian aid. I personally think it is the church's responsibility. But the problem lies with the fact that the church doesn't do it (not nearly enough anyways). My job within the non-profit I work for is to communicate with (supply) other non-profits. (Point being that I know a lot about charities) I don't know of any of us that could keep our doors open if we were not getting government assistance ... lots and lots of government assistance.

So what is the lesser of the two evils? Unjust taxation or losing international aid? I have already argued the case for international aid, but on the other hand if we agree to the unjust taxation how much other BS are they going to use our taxes for? Both choices lead down a dark path and I am frankly glad that I can sit here and complain about things without having to be the guy to actually make the decision.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

kejmack said:


> I think it will not be a question of preppers being the new world leaders. I think it will be more like "The Book of Eli" where the people who control the resources (water, fuel, etc) will be the ones who can control the population.


The U.S. Army has years worth of food. In time the government will regain control of the whole country. It's not the people that HAVE the resources who will rule before that. It's the people who CAN TAKE the resources who will rule.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

BillS said:


> The U.S. Army has years worth of food. In time the government will regain control of the whole country. It's not the people that HAVE the resources who will rule before that. It's the people who CAN TAKE the resources who will rule.


Exactly. The problem is that tyrants (or those who would _become_ tyrants) actively seek power and control, while those who seek peace, do not. So, it seems likely that any leader or group who seeks to stabilize an area or help people in an area, would probably be reacting to some threat to their peace or stability caused by some would-be tyrant. As we all know, _action_ is always faster than _reaction_, so by the time you could get any sort of resistance mounted to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, you would effectively be trying to overthrow an established group.

Think of it this way: a gang like the Hell's Angels or the Bloods or MS13 is much more likely to seize control of an area than Boy Scout Troop #734, as that is already what they are set up to do. Now, once the locals tire of being raided by thugs, a few locals may band together to fight back. However, in a town where there is no gang activity, it is unlikely that Cub Master Jim is going to step up immediately and say, "This town is under my protection! Cubs, get your pocket knives out and whittle a spear." Even nominal leaders do not typically grab for more power or influence until there is a reason.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

I think the OP had a nobel idea and shouldn't be chastised for it. Its not a dictator he wants... just someone to step up and steer whatever reconstruction needs to be done in order that the life we are familiar with... and civilization... can regain a foothold.

Me? I'm a lot more pragmatic. I've dealt with all sorts of groups. What I find in every one is that you are fortunate if ten percent of group members actually contribute. The other ninety percent always have some excuse as to why they aren't available and can't help out or participate. However, they all will show up when the crops come in and wanting their share. 

On a personal note, I don't have enough preps to spread around outside my immediate family. Most preppers don't. In fact, advertising to anyone that you have prepped may cause you all sorts of unwanted attention... and trouble from pleading/angry neighbors, criminals, and even local authorities.

Even if you are lucky enough to have stored away enough food for a year.. even longer... whats at the end of it? What if a crash results in years of a very mean, difficult existence? Can you be self-sufficient enough to survive once all the rice and canned goods are gone? Remember, vegetables just don't pop out of the ground of their own accord and livestock does not magically appear out in the yard. It all takes planning, tools/equipment, space, seeds, hard backbreaking work, and TIME. Violence, disease, and starvation are likely to arrive long before harvest time.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Jezcruzen said:


> Even if you are lucky enough to have stored away enough food for a year.. even longer... whats at the end of it? What if a crash results in years of a very mean, difficult existence? Can you be self-sufficient enough to survive once all the rice and canned goods are gone? Remember, vegetables just don't pop out of the ground of their own accord and livestock does not magically appear out in the yard. It all takes planning, tools/equipment, space, seeds, hard backbreaking work, and TIME. Violence, disease, and starvation are likely to arrive long before harvest time.


Very true.

In addition to all the work, equipment and supplies you also have to defend it. Be it MZB or a raiding raccoon. Anything that takes the veggies and livestock away from you is directly taking it from you and your families mouth. During a hard time will others around you also take up the same ethics and try to grow/raise their own? Or will they be doing midnight raids on your crops? Are you willing to shoot your neighbor who's stealing some of your corn to feed his kids?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

I don't think there was anything inherently noble about the original post, nor do I think that the exercising of power is inherently ignoble. I believe that the originator of this thread was merely attempting to point out that preppers would be in a better position than most to lead.

I never said that one must become a dictator to be a leader, either, only that the anarchic collapse of society would create a fertile ground from which dictators will arise.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> I can't argue with that. It is definitely not our governments responsibility or right to use our taxes on humanitarian aid. I personally think it is the church's responsibility. But the problem lies with the fact that the church doesn't do it (not nearly enough anyways). My job within the non-profit I work for is to communicate with (supply) other non-profits. (Point being that I know a lot about charities) I don't know of any of us that could keep our doors open if we were not getting government assistance ... lots and lots of government assistance.
> 
> So what is the lesser of the two evils? Unjust taxation or losing international aid? I have already argued the case for international aid, but on the other hand if we agree to the unjust taxation how much other BS are they going to use our taxes for? Both choices lead down a dark path and I am frankly glad that I can sit here and complain about things without having to be the guy to actually make the decision.


I would gladly make the decision to lose international aid. There are way too many problems that come with the federal government taxing us and using that money for things which are out of the scope of its charter (the Constitution). Folks will step up to provide aid and those getting aid will step up to the responsibility that they have to provide for themselves. The best folks to do humanitarian aid is the private sector -- the federal government does not have the right nor are they any good at it (efficiency wise).


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

Turtle said:


> I believe that the originator of this thread was merely attempting to point out that preppers would be in a better position than most to lead.


... correct


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

NO church or church-related aid is classified as "charity" if it is of U.S. origin, it is classified under 'ministry'... idk why :dunno:


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> Folks will step up to provide aid and those getting aid will step up to the responsibility that they have to provide for themselves. The best folks to do humanitarian aid is the private sector -- the federal government does not have the right nor are they any good at it (efficiency wise).


While this is the line spat out by noted Libertarian economist Milton Friedman (who I am a big fan of) I never really bought into it.
In theory, the gubt takes in less money (reduces taxes) because we cut off foreign aid (which I am all for) so therefore does not need it (like that would ever happen, they would just spend it elsewhere). According to Wiki for 2009 was 47B in both economic and military foreign aid, which is about $160 per person. If I got an extra $13/month, so $7.5 per paycheck, I would not be giving it away, assuming I would even notice such a small increase. Even if you say its ~$250 per household, I would doubt the assumption that charity would even factor into the equation.
I am certainly not advocating that gubt should be involved in it at all, just pointing out what I think is a major flaw in the theory.
Would you send money to Columbia to fight the 'war on drugs'? To Saudi Arabia to fight extremism? To Africa to help starving children? Do you now? If not, why not? Because the gubt is 'taking care of it'?
Sorry, keep in mind I use 'you' a lot not meaning you specifically, but everyone.
Not that this post is completely off topic, allow me to continue. 
I highly recommend the 'Ishmael' books. In the first book, one of the points made really stood out for me. Basically it was 'give a man a fish...', but it went further. It made the point that giving food to starving people in Africa makes the problem worse. If a population cannot sustain itself already, then giving it food only makes more people, which in turn makes more hungry/staving people, prepetuating the already untenable situation. As heartless as it sounds, it really struck a chord with me.

Just to get back on the topic, I will reiterate my earlier post that I intend to keep my head down and not attract any attention. I have no desire to 'lead' anyone, even what could become my little prepared society. Get it? Prepared society?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

I have no problem taking a leadership role; I have been promoted to supervision in every job i've had since I was 17, so it comes pretty naturally to me. If I saw that people were floundering about, I would step up and provide leadership.

However, I agree with Immolatus; it has to be survival of the fittest. I have no desire to artificially sustain a population which should die off if it cannot care for itself. It does no one any favors to waste resources on those unwilling to care for themselves.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> Would you send money to Columbia to fight the 'war on drugs'? To Saudi Arabia to fight extremism? To Africa to help starving children? Do you now? If not, why not? Because the gubt is 'taking care of it'?


I appreciated your response and wanted to answer even though we are off topic a little bit.

No, I would not send money to Columbia to fight the war on drugs because that country should fund its own initiatives. I also think it is a lost cause that is full of corruption.

No, I would not send money to Sauidi Arabia to "fight extremism" because that mission is too vague and when "extremism" rears its head to *my *nation I *expect *the government to use its *awesome *military power to *utterly annihilate *the opposition (I know, this isnt usually how we do it but its how we should).

Yes, I might send money for starving children in Africa if I knew the organization and its mission and how it operated. I support work that sends money/food/supplies to Mexico and I know the organization well. Thats my point -- the government is not the best place for this work to happen and I think you agree. If I had an extra few dollars it would not greatly affect my charity but it also would not hinder it. However if I have an opportunity to give to something I believe in and I open my wallet and there is no $7.50 I dont give it cause I dont have it. Thats how giving should work.


----------



## headhunter (Nov 21, 2008)

Perhaps I'm just not very smart. 
If you give money to support a child and that child grows up, aren't they going to find a spouse and have wee ones? If the country can't support the adult as a child, how will it support them as an adult and their children. So then we are looking at a much larger problem then there was to begin with. We are looking are people with nothing to loose and C-4 and AK 47s are cheap. When they find what we have done to them with our "quantitative easing" and our breaking the faith they once placed in the value of the American dollar as the reserve currency, they will be more than a little angry and justifiably so. 
I appreciate those neighbors that stop for a visit and all of a sudden they're working along side of you without being asked. It gives me enormous satisfaction to be able to help a neighbor or a friend: I simile on the inside all day.
Living in the country, if there is some garbage blowing around the yard I had best pick it up or I'll be looking at it tomorrow - again.
It bothers me to see pictures of long lines of trucks or containers waiting to come into this country, sure foreign labor is cheaper - but everyone wants to sell to those rich Americans especially those companies that moved production overseas. 
It appears everyone is angry at the "baby boomers" for wanting the funds they placed in the care of the United States Government, but very little anger is placed in the direction of those who have stolen the money promising to pay it back at a later date.
Will the preppers become leaders ? Perhaps in the states that were on one side in the last election, but in the others?
Like I said, I'm not too smart.


----------



## Ponce (May 3, 2009)

I only read post one and my answer is........YOU WILL BE SORRY because once they know that you have something they will want more and more and more till you have............. no more.

On my second trip to Cuba to see my dad I took a LARGE quantity of medecine and first aid nick nacks.......a lady came to see if we had any aspiring because she had a tooth aque, my dad's new wife told her that we had none........I the told her "Yes we have some, there is a large bottle in stock"....well, she gave the lady five aspirings two hours later there were two more people at the door with tooth aque............protect what you have for you and YOUR FAMILY and treat it like it is the last one.............it is not a matter of being mean or nasty to others but of SURVIVAL.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*It's about*



keepitsimple said:


> I work in non-profit and have travelled in some of the poorest places in the world. In these third-world countries everything is falling down, covered in trash, etc. It was odd to me that they don't constantly work to make their world a better place, but I discovered that it is because there is no real gain. No one is going to compensate them for their labor.
> 
> That leads me to a thought. In event of TEOTWAWKI the only people well stocked with the essential needs are going to be preppers. I have heard multiple people talking about how we will have to hide, fight, etc. to keep our supplies, but I would challenge that their perspective is wrong. We would suddenly have the power to lead in rebuilding. We would be able to hire people (paying them with food, water, ammo, and other supplies) to rebuild the community.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but prepping will only increase our ability to survive a SHTF situation.

The current set of 577 people who make decisions for the rest of us will go underground due to the arrangments already made by our goverment.

It is called "COG" Continunity of goverment.

Obama, Barny Frank and all the rest of them will be spirited away underground along with enough troops and supplys to ensure they will still be in charge when they decide to emerge.

Don't get any ideas about changing the status quo.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

BillM said:


> Sorry, but prepping will only increase our ability to survive a SHTF situation.
> 
> The current set of 577 people who make decisions for the rest of us will go underground due to the arrangments already made by our goverment.
> 
> ...


Well, yeah, i'll agree with you to a degree, at least in the DC-metro area. I have to wonder, however, what their sphere of influence will be, post-event. That would depend upon the nature of the event and the condition of the infrastructure.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*I hope I'm wrong*



Turtle said:


> Well, yeah, i'll agree with you to a degree, at least in the DC-metro area. I have to wonder, however, what their sphere of influence will be, post-event. That would depend upon the nature of the event and the condition of the infrastructure.


I hope I am wrong but martial law will likely be the order of the day when the 577 emerge well fed and in control !


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

The_Blob said:


> NO church or church-related aid is classified as "charity" if it is of U.S. origin, it is classified under 'ministry'... idk why :dunno:


What are you basing this off of? The large majority of American Aid is through the faith-based community and is considered charity. It is also considered ministry by those organizations, but it is charity.



Immolatus said:


> If I got an extra $13/month, so $7.5 per paycheck, I would not be giving it away, assuming I would even notice such a small increase. ... It made the point that giving food to starving people in Africa makes the problem worse. If a population cannot sustain itself already, then giving it food only makes more people, which in turn makes more hungry/staving people, prepetuating the already untenable situation. As heartless as it sounds, it really struck a chord with me.


You make two very solid points that make this topic far less black and white than most of us pretend. The answer is no, people would not give that $7.50 on their own. (related statistic: a large study was done on Christians that attend church weekly and read their bible regularly {ie devout Christians} and only 20% give a tithe {that is 10% of their income}).

You also make a good point about "feeding a man a fish" vs "teaching a man to fish." That is the most confrontational topic in humanitarian aid and although everyone has an opinion, no one seems to have an answer. My take is that you have to do both. If you don't teach a man to fish then you have not helped him, but if he dies before he learns to catch a fish then you still haven't helped him. You have to do both at the same time. Either way, the process takes money that has to come from somewhere. Currently a large chunk of that money comes from our government.



TheAnt said:


> Yes, I might send money for starving children in Africa if I knew the organization and its mission and how it operated. I support work that sends money/food/supplies to Mexico and I know the organization well. Thats my point -- the government is not the best place for this work to happen and I think you agree. If I had an extra few dollars it would not greatly affect my charity but it also would not hinder it. However if I have an opportunity to give to something I believe in and I open my wallet and there is no $7.50 I dont give it cause I dont have it. Thats how giving should work.


1- Good for you for making sure you know who you are giving your money to and how they are using it. I know the inner workings of a lot of non-profits and some of them are worthy of the poor reputation we sometimes have  I often say that the best people I have ever met have been through charity work, but the sorriest people I have ever met have also been through charity work.

2- Without the government would charities be able to accomplish what they currently accomplish? Charity is a very political game. We often have containers that we can't get out of some random countries port because we are unwilling to bribe the authorities within the port. We then have to get government politics involved to get the container out. (Still not arguing that the government should be heading up our charity work. I am simply laying out the facts as I have seen them.)



headhunter said:


> Perhaps I'm just not very smart.
> If you give money to support a child and that child grows up, aren't they going to find a spouse and have wee ones? If the country can't support the adult as a child, how will it support them as an adult and their children. So then we are looking at a much larger problem then there was to begin with.


(You are not the first to argue this point, but you are the most recent so I will respond to your inference. I am not saying this is exactly what you think, but there are people that think it.)

The basic claim is survival of the fittest - if they are not strong enough to live than they should die and leave the world to be a better place for the rest of us.

My response: How unbearably selfish! We are not talking about animals, if we were, then I would agree. We are talking about people.

How long before "survival of the fittest" turns into "if you are not positively giving more to society than you are receiving then you are worthless and should be eliminated"? That leads to genocide (or the attempt of) as is proven by countless examples in history.



BillM said:


> I hope I am wrong but martial law will likely be the order of the day when the 577 emerge well fed and in control !


Perhaps, but America is a really big place and is going to need more leadership that 577 people can give. Perhaps we will simply be in a place to lead our own small community.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> You make two very solid points that make this topic far less black and white than most of us pretend. The answer is no, people would not give that $7.50 on their own. (related statistic: a large study was done on Christians that attend church weekly and read their bible regularly {ie devout Christians} and only 20% give a tithe {that is 10% of their income}).


Some of us would give $7.50 more on our own but because of taxation we dont have that option. Charity cannot be forced or it is no longer charity now is it? Also you should study a bit on old testament titheing and you will find that the 10% tithe was a Jewish tax that amounted to income tax. The Jews were then able to give over and above that as charity. We (Christians) dont pay Jewish income tax and it never had anything to do with Christianity except when misunderstood and misapplied by folks -- often folks who were the recipient of said tax/tithe or folks that thought they were better than everyone else for paying it.

EDIT: Did a little bit more reading on the old testament tithe and it was actually unlawful for anyone who was not of the tribe of Levi to accept a tithe. Jesus could not lawfully accept a tithe (and He did not accept one). So unless your pastor is of the tribe of Levi and can trace his lineage to Aaron then it is unlawful (under Jewish law) to accept a tithe. Interesting, eh?



keepitsimple said:


> You also make a good point about "feeding a man a fish" vs "teaching a man to fish." That is the most confrontational topic in humanitarian aid and although everyone has an opinion, no one seems to have an answer. My take is that you have to do both. If you don't teach a man to fish then you have not helped him, but if he dies before he learns to catch a fish then you still haven't helped him. You have to do both at the same time. Either way, the process takes money that has to come from somewhere. Currently a large chunk of that money comes from our government.


I tend to agree with you here and charity is the best way for this to happen.



keepitsimple said:


> 2- Without the government would charities be able to accomplish what they currently accomplish? Charity is a very political game. We often have containers that we can't get out of some random countries port because we are unwilling to bribe the authorities within the port. We then have to get government politics involved to get the container out. (Still not arguing that the government should be heading up our charity work. I am simply laying out the facts as I have seen them.)


Again I have to reiterate that charity is not charity when it is forced. If government is using tax dollars to pay so-called charitys then that money from taxation is not charity. It is hard earned wages seized from citizens who now cannot give that money to charity (weather they would or not is another issue).



keepitsimple said:


> (You are not the first to argue this point, but you are the most recent so I will respond to your inference. I am not saying this is exactly what you think, but there are people that think it.)
> 
> The basic claim is survival of the fittest - if they are not strong enough to live than they should die and leave the world to be a better place for the rest of us.
> 
> ...


You hit the nail on the head here! I think you said this very well!

We should help others when we can but it should NEVER be forced.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> We (Christians) dont pay Jewish income tax and it never had anything to do with Christianity except when misunderstood and misapplied by folks -- often folks who were the recipient of said tax/tithe or folks that thought they were better than everyone else for paying it.
> 
> EDIT: Did a little bit more reading on the old testament tithe and it was actually unlawful for anyone who was not of the tribe of Levi to accept a tithe. Jesus could not lawfully accept a tithe (and He did not accept one). So unless your pastor is of the tribe of Levi and can trace his lineage to Aaron then it is unlawful (under Jewish law) to accept a tithe. Interesting, eh?


Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. *You should have practiced the latter*, without neglecting the former.​ This is also found in red in the Bible meaning Jesus personally said it.

This argument is way off topic, but I am ok with that if you are.  Christ said he came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.

(Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.​
He also explains that under that law we are commanded not to kill, commit adultery, etc. But that now, under grace, (eg new testament) if we have have hate in our hearts toward our brother than we have committed murder in our hearts and will be subject to the same punishment. Or if we lust after a woman in our heart than we have committed adultery (see Matthew 5:17-47)

So if under grace we are held to a higher standard than the Jews were held to under the Law, than how can you say the tithe is Old Testament alone? It appears clear to me that if you are a Christian than you are called to be even more generous than a 10% tithe.

I would be glad to give you more proof that your claim of a tithe being an Old Testament tax on Jews is inaccurate (although highly accepted in our culture) if you would like. It is a topic I have spent A LOT of time researching. (There is more scripture about money than just about any subject in the Bible. I think God knew how to get our attention.  )



TheAnt said:


> If government is using tax dollars to pay so-called charitys then that money from taxation is not charity. It is hard earned wages seized from citizens who now cannot give that money to charity (weather they would or not is another issue).
> 
> We should help others when we can but it should NEVER be forced.


You are right that there is no such thing as forced charity ... lets call it humanitarian taxes :2thumb: I consider the lesser of two evils a humanitarian tax than my conscience messing with me that our Great country is not doing our part to protect those that can't protect themselves, but I will accept that it is a very gray area. Who knows, the way congress is slashing the budget we may not have any governmental money going towards foreign aid this coming year.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Well, alright, if we are going to take this thread in _that_ direction...

I humbly submit:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
hopefully that link works correctly...


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Well, alright, if we are going to take this thread in _that_ direction...
> 
> I humbly submit:
> YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
> hopefully that link works correctly...


I don't think it worked dude ...


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Hmmmm.... it worked for me. I will try to repost it when I get home.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

Ponce said:


> I only read post one and my answer is........YOU WILL BE SORRY because once they know that you have something they will want more and more and more till you have............. no more.
> 
> On my second trip to Cuba to see my dad I took a LARGE quantity of medecine and first aid nick nacks.......a lady came to see if we had any aspiring because she had a tooth aque, my dad's new wife told her that we had none........I the told her "Yes we have some, there is a large bottle in stock"....well, she gave the lady five aspirings two hours later there were two more people at the door with tooth aque............protect what you have for you and YOUR FAMILY and treat it like it is the last one.............it is not a matter of being mean or nasty to others but of SURVIVAL.


THANK YOU, Ponce, the person here with the MOST vested personal experience in this situation.


----------



## Ponce (May 3, 2009)

You welcome Blob :wave:..........but.........what will happen here in the states will be worse than what is going on in Cuba (even now after 50 years) so that I really don't have that kind of experience.........and that's why I usually have 3 plan behind the plan and sometimes up to 5.......like.......how to reach a foreign country if the US is in a lock down situation.

Many people like to quote what happened in Argentina, thanks to its author who is a pretty good propanganist, but there it lasted only for 4 or 5 years that is nothing when compared to Cuba. 

Those who will be able to make a better life for themselves, in what is to come, will be those with the capabilities to transport X product for A town to B town........if you already have a large pick up then get yourselves a trailer that you can use to transport the goods.........specially for the rich, they will always have money to pay you with......or better yet.......gold or silver :sssh:


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

keepitsimple said:


> Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. *You should have practiced the latter*, without neglecting the former.​ This is also found in red in the Bible meaning Jesus personally said it.
> 
> This argument is way off topic, but I am ok with that if you are.  Christ said he came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.


Im OK with it but I want to make clear that my intent is not to put down anyone -- if you believe God calls you to tithe then it would be a sin for you NOT to tithe. However, the truth will set you free.



keepitsimple said:


> (Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law *until everything is accomplished*. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.​


Christ is the fulfillment of the law. The laws purpose was to show that nobody could live up to it and that they needed an intermediary, the Messiah, Christ. Nobody was ever saved by keeping the law, *nobody* (not to say thats what you are trying to infer). Notice that Christ said "until everything is accomplished". "Accomplished" could be "finished" or "completed". When Christ gave up His spirit on the cross he said "Tetelestai". See the meaning below from Bible.org:

_"Literally translated the word tetelestai means, "It is finished." The word occurs in John 19:28 and 19:30 and these are the only two places in the New Testament where it occurs. In 19:28 it is translated, "After this, when Jesus knew that all things were now completed, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, he said, 'I thirst.'" Two verses later, he utters the word himself: "Then when he received the sour wine Jesus said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

The word tetelestai was also written on business documents or receipts in New Testament times to show indicating that a bill had been paid in full. The Greek-English lexicon by Moulton and Milligan says this:

"Receipts are often introduced by the phrase [sic] tetelestai, usually written in an abbreviated manner..." (p. 630). The connection between receipts and what Christ accomplished would have been quite clear to John's Greek-speaking readership; it would be unmistakable that Jesus Christ had died to pay for their sins. "_​So obviously, the old testament law is done away with because Christ accomplished his mission. As you said we *are* held to a higher standard -- that of love. One of the problems with folks that want to follow the Mosaic law is that they pick and choose which ones to follow. Do you eat pork or any other unclean foods? I do! In Acts 10 Peter is told by God to eat unclean foods that were against the Mosaic law to consume. We both know God was not telling Peter to sin. There are countless other examples I could give but I think you probably get the idea. As you say below we are under grace, a higher standard:



keepitsimple said:


> He also explains that under that law we are commanded not to kill, commit adultery, etc. But that now, under grace, (eg new testament) if we have have hate in our hearts toward our brother than we have committed murder in our hearts and will be subject to the same punishment. Or if we lust after a woman in our heart than we have committed adultery (see Matthew 5:17-47)
> 
> So if under grace we are held to a higher standard than the Jews were held to under the Law, than how can you say the tithe is Old Testament alone? It appears clear to me that if you are a Christian than you are called to be even more generous than a 10% tithe.


Yes we are under grace, and under grace you may be led NOT to give at all and I may be led to give 100% but neither of us can judge the other for doing what we are led to do. I love grace! BUT, if you are going to give because its a "tithe" -- because of the law then you are not living under grace. Under the law it is unlawful for your pastor/teacher to accept a tithe unless he is a Levite Jew -- see Numbers 18. If you are going to live under the law then live under the *whole *law (including dietary laws, etc.). I think you will prefer grace. Your intent to follow the will of God is honorable but if you want to live in grace do not cling to the law (for righteousness or anything else). As (I believe) you know grace is preferable.



keepitsimple said:


> I would be glad to give you more proof that your claim of a tithe being an Old Testament tax on Jews is inaccurate (although highly accepted in our culture) if you would like. It is a topic I have spent A LOT of time researching. (There is more scripture about money than just about any subject in the Bible. I think God knew how to get our attention.  )


He definitely knows how to get our attention! No doubt! I would not mind hearing what you have to say about this subject. I am open to learning more but I want to know if you try to live by the whole law or just parts of it? Granted, some of the law is still good to live by but some of it is plain impossible -- and that was the point of the law from the day it was given to Moses.



keepitsimple said:


> You are right that there is no such thing as forced charity ... lets call it humanitarian taxes :2thumb: I consider the lesser of two evils a humanitarian tax than my conscience messing with me that our Great country is not doing our part to protect those that can't protect themselves, but I will accept that it is a very gray area. Who knows, the way congress is slashing the budget we may not have any governmental money going towards foreign aid this coming year.


It is a gray area and if I thought the government was doing a good job with humanitarian aid I would probably just let it slide. They dont and I dont let it slide. I would much prefer to have the choice of what charity to fund, how much, when, as God leads me.


----------



## keepitsimple (Jul 21, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> (Everything you said)


All valid and well worded points. (I considered letting it go with that because it is obvious we are arguing details when I think we would both agree on the important points, but I am enjoying the conversation so I want to reply to it)

I think where we are differing in opinion is that I don't view the point of God giving The Law as purely to show people that we can never live up to His perfect holiness - thus needing The Savior to restore us to righteousness.

But I also think that the law was originally given to protect us from ourselves. Jesus was able to summarize the entire Law into three commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart and love people as you love yourself. I think He was able to do that because the rest of the Law is a list of ways to do those three things. God is a loving father that desires to bless his children and, like any good father, doesn't want to see his children make stupid mistakes and have to reap the consequences. "The wages of sin is death" not because God is going to smite us for making mistakes, but because every choice and every action has a consequence and the consequences of breaking the Law lead to death.

All that being said, in answer to your question of do I keep all of the law, no. I have no desire to live under the law and I have no desire to have religion as I have never seen anything good come from religion. However I do think that the law directs us on how to live the most blessed lifestyle.

I don't use the Lord's name in vain because I want to keep reverence for the maker of the universe within my own heart. I don't kill because I don't want to go to prison. I don't commit adultery because I desire an intimate relationship with my wife and would prefer her not leave dividing my children. Similarly, I tithe because I am honoring God with the "first-fruits" the first and best of my work as a form of worship and as a statement to God and to my own heart that I trust he is providing for me and my family - not me.

Notice that in the Genesis story of Cain and Abel they both brought an offering (gave), but while Abel gave the first and best Cain gave "over the period of time." Cain gave after he had budgeted out what he needed and realized he had ample amount. Abel's offering was accepted and praised by God while Cain's was not. (note: The Law is not given for thousands of years after Cain and Abel)

On a side note: I personally don't think tithe has to go to your pastor or to the church. I typically do give it to my church because I want it to advance the Kingdom, but I think the best plan is to allow the Holy Spirit to direct you on where to give it. (I bought a man a new tire after he got a flat once with my tithe because I felt it is what I was supposed to do.)

As I step off my soap box let me iterate that I don't think this is a massively pertinent disagreement. Just a friendly conversation between brothers-in-Chirst trying to live our lives to His glory and encourage each other to do the same.

PS To save the original integrity of this thread I am going to repost our conversation about tithe (and Christ in general) to the religion section. I would love to carry on the conversation there.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Possumfam said:


> It's a great thought, but I think of the entitlement mentality people have now. If they won't work for it today, will they work for it tomorrow? Many want something for nothing, so...


Most teens will pick up a pitch fork or shovel after you pry their cold cramped hands from their cell phones or games.

My niece and 10 yr.old grandaughter was here this summer,I may as well be taling to myself,they were texting the whole conversation.My grandsons wanted to go watch games,I said no tv or games going here all day,they did'nt know what to do with themselves.

of course my daughter had to get into it,so I told her I may as well be talking to robots,did'nt go over too well.:eyebulge: All the while this 6 yr.old grandson of mine was interrupting[ daughters midlife kid].Not a good visit.But some visits are ok.


----------



## kappydell (Nov 27, 2011)

part of my plan is to teach others. someone has to show folks how to survive on little or nothing. i noticed during katrina, when everyone was bitchin for the TV cameras about no water, that nobody was organizing work groups to get things done...my husband used to say I would probably be arrested for trying to do so if it happened where we lived then (a very entitlement oriented area) for 'disturbing the peace' or some such nonsense. One person who knew how to drive a well could have organized all those strong younger folks (just aching to be heroes) to do so, then set up water sanitation stations. Oh well...meanwhile I try to teach as much as I can to as many as I can about skills like canning, water management, foraging, sewing, primitive camping (including emergency sanitation for health reasons), etc. My neighbors & I will be teaming up if the SHTF to work as a team. We are already making progress in networking to this end. I realize not everyone has good neighbors...it might be necessary to team up at a designated 'base' location instead, but teamwork will be critical IMHO to reestablishing things.


----------



## northstarprepper (Mar 19, 2013)

If you think government will not survive a TEOTWAWKI you are sadly mistaken. Be prepared for what comes after the TEOTWAWKI event. It does not matter whether it is a pandemic, financial collapse, EMP event, or nuclear war. There will be government in some form that all of us will have to deal with. Think now on how you will deal with that situation. Just don't count on the government to save you. They will be too busy saving themselves. Concentrate on food, water, shelter, and security for you and your group. Help others as you can and follow the logic in the old saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Share your knowledge with others so they can survive on their own. That is what we must do...teach others to survive as we have. Let others govern.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

I never want to become a world leader by attrition !


----------



## JackJobe (Mar 5, 2012)

What a bunch of pessimistic crap ---- and Independence (Self-Sufficiency) is a Myth.

NOT ONE of you could go it alone. You didn't Mine the metal in your tools, or forge them. Most Westerners don't grow your own foods and wouldn't know how. Your vehicles will run out of fuel or breakdown eventually. Dr. Prepper (James T Stevens) pointed this out Years ago.

Hide and pretend "they" won't find you OR fight to the Death to defend your families. That's not the only choices.

What makes Humans Different from ALL other creatures on Earth? Co-operation! Animals use tools and some are amazingly smart but they will NOT cooperate Unless it's in their own interest, like packs of Wolves.

Our Best Hope is to Awaken in others the same concerns that 'Frighten' us. KeepItSimple is suggesting that we think of the "After Disaster" economy and realize that Barter is a viable way to help society to make a comeback. I'm putting away Barter items without thinking of starting a own Feudal Kingdom. Don't You have 
Extras to trade for items you might need?

Everyone's got their own thoughts. Does your contribution to the discussion add value, OR are you just here to make others feel stupid about their P-O-V? No one has the right answer. IF you want to hide, Hide! IF you want to work together with others, seeking positive alternatives, I truly believe you will find a great deal more satisfaction with Life.

"The only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve." Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Prize Winner


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

JackJobe said:


> What a bunch of pessimistic crap ---- and Independence (Self-Sufficiency) is a Myth.
> 
> NOT ONE of you could go it alone. You didn't Mine the metal in your tools, or forge them. Most Westerners don't grow your own foods and wouldn't know how. Your vehicles will run out of fuel or breakdown eventually. Dr. Prepper (James T Stevens) pointed this out Years ago.
> 
> ...


Where is my popcorn, this could get good.


----------



## Boomy (Mar 17, 2012)

invision said:


> Where is my popcorn, this could get good.


Ya, I thought about jumping in, but figured it be more entertaining to wait for Magus or Bobb...


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Boomy said:


> Ya, I thought about jumping in, but figured it be more entertaining to wait for Magus or Bobb...


Magus I think is on vacation, Sentry is on vacation... Bobbb must be working on more research...

Btw - me too... But I am gonna sit this one out... I... Think...


----------

