posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:01 PM
In a recent discussion on the correlation on militias and survivalist, I realized that there seems to be different definitions for what a survivalist
is. After some brief contemplation on the matter, I realized that this is because, at least in America, there are two categories of survivalist.
First, there is the passive form of survival, essentially either a bugout or hunker down approach to sitX. In this aspect, there seems to be a desire
to avoid or mitigate conflict.
The second school of thought in survivalism, is more commanding and aggressive. This division will stand their ground in a conflict sitX.
This is where the aspect of militias come from. Groups of people who organize as a preparation for a conflict sitX. They realize that if the sitX
involved a foreign or oppressive government, they would continually be hunted, thus bugging out would only buy additional time, yet prolong the
inevitable. Instead, they collectively assemble and prepare for such an occurrence.
So for someone to say that militia members are not survivalist is like a Republican saying a Democrat is not an American because their political
ideals are not identical. There are categories or denominations of survivalist. This does end up including militias.
Perhaps it is just the increasingly negative stereotype with militias that has the passive group so adament against being associated with militias. At
least from what I can understand of the situation.
Edit: modified title
[edit on 8-5-2009 by Wolf321]