It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A survivalist in action...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Here's an interesting thought for us all:

If situation 'x' does take place, and it becomes 'every man for himself', why are we all going to go it alone?



The logic behind the question is thusly:
When situation 'x' takes place, we will all be out there (some will remain at home, others head for wilderness), trying to survive. We have all prepared for the worst scenario we are able to imagine. We have mostly decided (at least that is the impression I get here) that it will be every man for himself and that no other person should be trusted, save those we have decided to 'rough it' with.

However, would it not be far more logical for us 'survivalists' to organise into large groups or parties? These people would then remain in their parties and pool resources, knowledge etc. This would provide a better chance of survival in the winter, when several people would be able to build shelters whilst others prepared food, etc. meaning that essential jobs are done in no time at all, compared to days or even weeks when alone. It would also enable us to decide upon several parties that would remain in contact with each other. That way, if one party were attacked, or required assistance of sorts, it would be more easily provided. Safety in numbers again.... Not to mention, that more people are more able to carry more items, than just one of us.

I admit that one person alone, would possibly be able to evade a 'death squad' when being hunted in the woods, but in all seriousness, I have a feeling that situation 'x' will not be quite as harsh as this, and we should really prepare to group with like minded people so that when the tribulation begins, we are prepared, and grouped with others that are equally prepared and ready to stave off the extinction of the human race.

In addition, in groups, when the 'dust settles' after situation 'x' has passed, being in a group would allow re-settlement to occur much more quickly than it would if you were alone. In addition, it you are alone, others are likely to be less trusting of you, when situation x does pass. A group of people will certainly have the greatest chance of success.


Any thoughts?




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


Good clear rational thought out post.

Yes a group is more able to survive than a single person, history has proven this. Its just that this group needs structure, rules and limits that all agree on. In a SITX type scenario, the more resources the better, but theres the catch. More people, easier to find and harder to conceal.

I'd say 20 max for the first few months, and make sure they all had skills to bring to the table.


(However, that said, for the coming event I want to be underground !)



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I understand the reasoning behind grouping.

My partner and I have discussed it at length and have come to the conclusion that for US, it is better not to group.

We aren't preparing for sitx by stashing caches of food and weapons or building a bunker or buying lots of specilized and expensive equipment.

We are preparing by learning as much as we can about living off the land.
We are preparing by getting our bodies in a shape.
We are preparing by making sure we know how to leave the area ( if that is what is called for ) in the quickest way.

All this we do with the intention of making a go of it just the two of us. We feel that the two of us can travel faster and be more efficent at hiding if that is what is called for.

But that's just us - Different strokes for different folks and all that.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
its not a new idea
native american tribes
its what developes naturally out of anarchy



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
I understand the reasoning behind grouping.

My partner and I have discussed it at length and have come to the conclusion that for US, it is better not to group.

We aren't preparing for sitx by stashing caches of food and weapons or building a bunker or buying lots of specilized and expensive equipment.

We are preparing by learning as much as we can about living off the land.
We are preparing by getting our bodies in a shape.
We are preparing by making sure we know how to leave the area ( if that is what is called for ) in the quickest way.

All this we do with the intention of making a go of it just the two of us. We feel that the two of us can travel faster and be more efficent at hiding if that is what is called for.

But that's just us - Different strokes for different folks and all that.


I see where your coming from merigold, indeed, going alone or in pairs is a good option if you need concealment over comfort.

As you say, different strokes for different folks.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Both lone hunter and groups are key, but the real decider is that they are cohesive and everyone gets on. All it takes is one clash of personalities and WHAM the whole group is unstablised. Dan's group of 20 figure is about as much as I'd dare join. You are getting into faction-numbers territory and before long the group splinters, resources are disputed, weapons drawn you know the rest.

For me small groups of no more than six are the groove.

I agree to a point with Dan on 'you can join only if you bring something to the table'
However the definition of 'something' is up for grabs.
Do you expect them to be an expert outdoorsman, tracker, mechy, surgeon or just an everyman weekend warrior type survivalist?
I think people inherently know when someone is good for the group or not in desperate times. Things boil down to the bone pretty quick.

I agree that if you've got a guy who is a total waster who won't get off their arse and work for the group then the long walk for them it is.
But most survivalists can bring something to the table.
If nothing more than a willing attitude and a trusting pair of eyes to take care of sentry duty and camp chores.
I'd expect a lone survivalist looking to join to have all his own gear, clothes, weapon plus gear to be pooled into the group.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider
Dan's group of 20 figure is about as much as I'd dare join. You are getting into faction-numbers territory and before long the group splinters, resources are disputed, weapons drawn you know the rest.


Agree totally. 20 MAX!



For me small groups of no more than six are the groove.


Totally agree again with you here again. I like smaller groups. Easier to conceal.



I agree to a point with Dan on 'you can join only if you bring something to the table'
However the definition of 'something' is up for grabs.
Do you expect them to be an expert outdoorsman, tracker, mechy, surgeon or just an everyman weekend warrior type survivalist?

But most survivalists can bring something to the table.
If nothing more than a willing attitude and a trusting pair of eyes to take care of sentry duty and camp chores.
I'd expect a lone survivalist looking to join to have all his own gear, clothes, weapon plus gear to be pooled into the group.


Bring your own gear, have a willingness to join in whole heartedly and to the benefit of the group, and as you say be a trusted pair of eyes on sentry duty.

Not all folks are going to be medics / Mechs / Survivalists, but a certain degree of 'can do' goes a long long way when under stress!



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Here is the way we see it in our group. We have the main guys around 10 or so. Each person is responsible for their own gear- we do however tell them to carry common caliburs, some of the same type of equiptment and the exact same kind of personal trauma bag in the same place on everyone.

Then we have "spares" these being someones parents, kids and those you wouldn't want out there mobile with the "10." Those get left at the Primary location. Those people are also must have defensive weapons and packs incase they need to leave. Where they are at is already built to defend, has livestock, food and a well. The spares maintain that area. More importantly gives them something to do and stay focused.

Everyone trains. This is how I do it, we exam what MOS they had in the military, what there job is now and what can we get them to do or learn.

They come to training for a shake out. We assign them to particular job function within the group.

oh and I will ge unable to reply until I get back from my trip.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Excellent post

I have lived in the wilderness for close to a decade. My life would not change much should things ever take a turn and require living totally off the grid and living fully self sustaining.

(I am Temporary Caretaker) Owner of less then one hundred acres mostly wooded with a mix of hardwoods: hickory, maples, red oak and some of the softwoods like white pine and a few popular. We have several artisan wells so good clean drinking water is abundant. Approximately 10 to 15 acres belongs to the wildlife and contains a wetland-this location on my property I have set aside as a wildlife sanctuary. I do not walk this land nor allow any other to trespass.

Simply said, here there is clean water; there is enough fallen hardwood to provide heat and fuel for many. There is an abundance of nut producing trees and trees that provide nourishment and protein. Responsibly maintained and harvested I am sure the trees alone will provide enough nourishment and protein for many years. There is a huge variety of native herbs; by the way, I believe in responsible native way gardening.
I learned from my elder relatives what trees are edible and how to make the most from the nuts many of the trees produce.

The last few years I have been pondering and thinking seriously about selling off a few small plots of land to others of like mind: that is another person/family who is willing and able to live in harmony with nature ‘mother earth’ and take a responsible part in living in a self sustaining community.

My thought is selling a few to several small plots of land and retaining a large-community plot of land that we all share; we all care take; we all share in gardening and responsibly managing our wood lot for building lumber and heating and cooking fuel and to provide nourishment and protein.

I am probably out of my mind, right? I would sincerely appreciate your suggestions or thoughts about this. What I am pondering and thinking about is creating a small self sustaining community and if this self sustaining community should be created, I am sure the members of this community would have much to contribute and offer.

Please excuse my terrible grammar and any misspellings.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


Good post. I understand exactly where you are coming from, I think I have answered a question similiar to this before in a seperate post.

I agree totally that being in a group will increase your personal chances of survival greatly. The group members could share knowledge, tactics & look out for each other.

Everyone has a unique skill-set, so it makes sense to pool together resources etc

However, I think that in some situations certain memebers of a said group could potentially become greedy i.e. they might see a piece of equipment they could use for themselves, maybe they have everything else, would they not be tempted to steal it and go off on their own?

Now this probably wouldn't actually happen to be honest, as someone who joins a group to survive hopefully won't be the sort of person that would take advantage.

And personally I'm not sure if I would join a group of up to 20 people, seems a little much for me. I'd prefer a smaller group of maybe 5-10 people, just because the group would be slightly more personal and thus hopefully gel together a little bit better.

I think its a comforting thought to imagine that in the event of SitX there would be a number of survival groups, all helping each other and getting into contacts with other groups to help them, however I don't quite see it happening like that.

[edit on 26/7/08 by Death_Kron]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


On the contrary, I think your idea of selling off small parcels of land to like-minded people is a sound one.

You would of course have to rigouresly vet them to make sure that they are of the same mind-set as you are and are willing to abide by the rules of your land stewardship.

I dont know if anyone recently has watched the program about 4 groups of people surviving in Alaska. It really showed there that interaction with others does make a big difference to your psychological well-being as well as helping to share out the workload.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


You might consider renting or leasing the land. That way you will maintain enough control so that it wouldn't be a problem if they decide to do anything else with the property or if they die and a relative inherits the land who has other ideas.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



Without prying I would first ask the following questions.

Distance to nearest town / city - far enough that a man couldn't walk on foot in a day?

Altitude. High up or low down?

Continent?

Those then would be my areas of concern.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
While I understand the attraction of a small group in certain types of survival situations, and under the right circumstances would not hesitate to join or establish such a group, they bring certain pitfalls that can be deadly.

If you are being pursued or have to move fast for any reason, there will inevitably be those who are faster than others. Do the stragglers get left behind? If they do, what's to keep them from turning on the group that abandoned them? Face it, people are, in general, unreliable.

Close attachments are another problem. facing hardships together can create close relationships, and that is a good thing in most cases, but when it's me or you... things can get dicey, especially when one actually values that relationship much more than the other. The latter lives another day in that instance.

Can you really trust everyone in the group? Do you know their backgrounds, their values, their positions? Or do you know what they want you to know?

Political pandering can exist even with those 6-man groups. Remember Survivor? It was based on this very principle.

OK, OK, I'm antisocial, I know. But I feel that should there be a need for a group, one will form. If there is not a need, one will not form. This is just something I think can be handled on the fly.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The safest bet for any group would be with friends and especially family, there is nothing stronger than a bloodbind.

I am fortunate in the fact that I live on a small Island and there are lot of my extended family living here, especially cousins .... family is the better way to go if possible, IMO.




top topics



 
0

log in

join