Categories of Survivalist (yes this includes Militia)

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]

You may want to re-think your assessment. From what I get of your description you have the pacifist = run and hide (chicken little), or the militia = stand and fight (soldier). IMO neither is a survivalist.

A survivalist is someone that prepares for as much as they can to stay alive. If an overwhelming force is moving in on me, I will bug out. If I am not in direct danger I have no need to bug out. Also please keep in mind our definitions of an overwhelming force may differ. A neighborhood full of starving people can be just as dangerous as an invading army. Each would require a different type of response.

A survivalist may be in your militia. A soldier may be a survivalist. I think that a survivalist soldier would be a guerrilla. Not a normal standing army type grunt.

Most survivalists I know are part of a network of other like minded individuals that have formed a "tribe" so to speak. Not everyone is meant to carry / use a weapon. Most will stay put, right where they are until conditions warrant they "bug out". Most have a family that depends on them for their survival.

In a PAW situation, my money would be on a small tribe of survivalists surviving over a "Postman" type militia. Large groups make large targets. A pack of wolves is much harder to eradicate than a herd of cattle.

Just my .02

Spiritowl

I consider myself a Survivalist and do not fit in either category..

Years ago I prepared for what I saw as the inevitable nuclear holocaust and now the several possibilities of economic collapse, continued nuclear threat and terrorist intervention..

I am neither anti-aggression or overtly aggressive, but determined for my family and myself to survive.

Other than my weapons and "Go Bag" (Which I need to keep for work anyway), I really do nothing special except to constantly try and improve my knowledge base, shooting skills and wilderness abilities.

Now if I could just get some dog gone ammo.!!!!

Originally posted by Spiritowl
You may want to re-think your assessment. From what I get of your description you have the pacifist = run and hide (chicken little), or the militia = stand and fight (soldier). IMO neither is a survivalist.

A survivalist is someone that prepares for as much as they can to stay alive.

As a unifying factor, yes, survival is paramount, but how an individual or group decides will be the best manner of obtaining that goal can be either more passive, or more aggressive.

I tend to think that most survivalist are a a mix of the two. I have seen individuals who would bug out or continually be on the move, and not use force unless cornered in a cave somewhere, and perhaps not even then. I have also know some militia type who hope a fight comes looking for them, with the survival aspect being they can last and live comfortably in place indefinitely. These would be two extremes.

I made this thread because I was a bit tired of seeing people argue saying that militia can't be survivalist because they would fight against a threat. After some discussion on the matter with one poster, he was able to accept that "All survivalist are not militia, yet many militia can be survivalist." Which is how I came to the conclusion that there are varying degrees of passivism and aggression in survivalist.





[edit on 10-5-2009 by Wolf321]

It all depends on what I am trying to survive. If there is a hurricane, I'm not about to try to defend my waterlogged already lost property. If there's a riot though I'm not about to just hand my electronics over to whomever wants them. If I'm ever in a warzone, well depends on how strongly I feel about the war. There are things I'd die for, and things I'd kill for, it's just a matter of deciding where that line is.