From the yahoo group survivalretreat, posted by Rick Cox, thought this was worth sharing. Personally I am off the radar with my preps, only several members of my family know of my preparations/capabilities. Frankly I'm not sure there are more benefits than liabilities in trying to recruit from the general population.
Re: It will take a village to survive
Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:49 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Richard Cox" whtwlf77
I'm big on historical examples, so I will approach your question from that direction.
First example - as someone else pointed out, Humans tend to congregate into villages and towns and eventually cities. Part of that is strength in numbers, part is to have more skill-sets nearby then a single person or family is likely to master. Part is also to have a market for whatever the person or family produces. Let's use a blacksmith for this example, which is a great skill for a survival oriented person to have. But you can't eat what a blacksmith produces, and unless someone is nearby and willing to pay ($$ or barter) for what the blacksmith produces he and his family will starve. Sure, the blacksmith could farm etc. but eventually the person or family is going to need something that the blacksmith can't make and that there is nothing else to sell or trade to acquire. So, over time people tend to specialize, but they need others nearby to actually have an economy.
Second example - History shows us that most significant changes in peoples or culture are instigated or forced on them by events elsewhere. Why is England considered an Anglo-Saxon people? Because the Angles and the Saxons were forced out of their lands and they fled to what is now England. Why is there evidence of Vikings in North America, Greenland, Iceland, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, etc.? Because land and wealth was so scarce in their Nordic homelands that they were driven to launch their ships and head elsewhere to find their success. And find it they did. In the significant changes we have to expect following a TEOTWAWKI event why should we not expect mass migrations, or modern day vikings, or the equivalent of Mongol hordes? These all happened in the past due to other events that were TEOTWAWKI to those who took part in, or were affected by, them. So IMHO there is no reason not to expect similar situations in future TEOTWAWKI
Now to tie the two examples together. Since Humans tend to congregate for the reasons given (and others of course), and since the common defense is so often a major concern against all the various threats mentioned above, people began to build walled cities as well as castles and other fortifications. They established various types of governmental and leadership arrangements as well as assorted types of law enforcement. I feel that the same would happen in a PC or any other grouping of Humans after a SHTF event. It might be contentious, there might even be blood spilt, but some type of concensus would be reached and adopted.
Someone also mentioned that stories about the "mountain men" and similar lone survivors show that it can be done, and I'll agree that there are a few instances that support that argument. I will offer the counter argument that stories are only written by survivors, and in most cases the ones who killed the single family household members weren't big on writing about what they'd done (if they could write at all) or they didn't survive long after themselves. Which should obviously show that most such sitations just end up with dead or enslaved family members who tell no stories about what happened to them.
Finally I've another example for folks here to consider. There is a series called Vikings that recently started. It tells the story of a band of Vikings who learn how to sail out of the Baltic eventually reaching England. They elect to attempt this risky undertaking because they've already stripped the available raiding targets to their East. Their first voyage to what is today England is a jackpot as they hit a monastery with no defenses but significant treasure of gold and precious stones. The lessons for us? 1) The Vikings didn't "need" to sail West to England, but even the chance for better spoils made a huge risk worth taking. 2) The Vikings could have negotiated for the treasure or traded for it, instead they took it and either killed or enslaved every person at the monastery. 3) They left no witnesses, so when they came back on another voyage nobody was alarmed or suspected that they were there to raid. 4) When faced with the
decision to talk or fight they usually prefer fight. How do these lessons actually apply to us? (following the number scheme above) 1) The gang-bangers or MBZs (MZBs? I don't recall) don't need a reason to pay your retreat a visit. They may just be collecting whatever they can find, they may be looking for something specific, they may just have nothing better to do. 2) Sure, they might knock politely and offer trade, but they might also just shoot everything on 2 legs and take whatever they want. 3) These folks won't want witnesses either. 4) Ever known folks, especially among the biker community (seen more than a few in the military as well) or similar groupings, who just like to fight or who get mean when they drink? My point in all this is to stress that we have no way of knowing what threats we might face, their numbers, their intent, their capabilities, or much of anything else. With numbers, leadership, solid defensive plans, and
vigorous defense we might just survive. Without those things our odds suck!
The original question.
From: "TerriB" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 952 PM
Subject: [survivalretreat] It will take a village to survive
It's amazing how preppers tend to be solitaries when to survive a WROL it will take a group. No 1 person or even 2 can do everything. Security, hunting and gathering, tending to livestock and gardening, preserving food, and all the everyday tasks that will come with this new frightening life. So I really want to know...if you are solitary why haven't you joined a group? I mean you belong to this group and share so is it the animosity of the site and computer?