Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Country's Great and All...

but it's certainly not a free pass to survive the apocalypse like a lot of people like to believe. There have been several instances in history where the collapse or severe strain on the system has resulted in people in the country faring much worse than the people in the cities. Do you think that if things get so bad that the government is confiscating food resources that they're going to go door to door emptying out people's cabinets in the city? That's a huge waste of resources when they can just go to the country and "compensate" farmers for their food stores. Do you think you'll be able to put up a solid defense against the military when they show up and demand you give them your latest crop for a bunch of worthless paper?

Do you know all of your neighbors? Maybe you think you do. You never know who's just waiting for a time when they don't have to worry about those pesky authorities. I grew up in the country. My family on my mother's side are still farmers. The ratio of unsavory characters to law abiding good people is about the same in the country as it is in the city. Not everyone in the country prepares. Some prepare by buying lots of guns and ammo "just in case". Maybe you think you know who you'll have to watch out for but you might not know everyone as well as you think you do. Actually, you probably don't know everyone period.

The cities are going to be tightly controlled in the event of really hard times. If it's a result of some kind of massive die off then obviously law and order will completely break down. If it does get to the point where people are looting homes then your house is one in hundreds of thousands of homes to choose from for people to loot. It's unlikely that you'll get targeted. Most people don't have more than a few days worth of food. After the first few empty houses the people willing to loot to survive are going to catch on to the idea that people in the country probably have more resources. What about the desperate, destitute people that decide to leave the city once things start getting tough? I already mentioned neighbors. If law and order is still in place then the people in the country will most definitely be as much at risk, if not more so in some cases, than the people in the city.

I'm not saying that the country is necessarily a bad place to live. I'm also not saying that the city will be the best place to be if things get hairy. Striving to own a productive piece of land with a veritable fortress all paid for should be something that everyone strives for. It's just that people in the country will have just as much to worry about as the people in the city. They might not have the same things to worry about but that doesn't make their circumstances any less dire.


theotherryan said...

I think that avoiding huge 100k plus cities would be advisable. Other then that there is no free lunch, even out in the sticks.

The biggest advantage I can see of being out in the sticks is that there are just plain fewer people. If x is the ratio of gobblins in a given group then that 75k town is going to have 10 times the gobblins as a town of 7500. That being said the counter to that is whatever mechanisms of law and order are around are going to be in town and will come to the gunshots on 5th and main a whole lot faster then out in the sticks. Food production is the biggest reason to move out of town.

gott_cha said...

I agree with the no "FREE LUNCH" and I agree with the idea of population density ratio's
But from My point of view as a constitutionalist and a free-born citizen,..not a "subject", I cannot willingly submit to Govt. enforced martial law.
Truly Id rather live out my days on my terms,..noton a despotic govt. gone mad.

Think of this for a moment, any actually believe that there are enough LEO's and Military left in the CONUS to effectively establish law and order In all cities soon enough to stop murder and starvation? I mean seriously!!
Hell they cant even seal the borders or evacuate a city from a hurricane.
Will you bet your life that the Govt. will take care of you when your meager rations run out? How about your children or Mom and Dad or your spouses life?

Now how many 100k or 75k cities are there in the nation? PLENTY!! How many troops or battalions of troops would be needed to provide security and green zones areas in a major city,..say like Chicago, Kansas City, San Fransisco, New York or even LA? The major metros will exhaust all manpower right off the bat,...D.C. will give a rats ass about Pleasantville USA ang concentrate entirely on Govt, agencies, Stock markets, Banks,..the WEALTHY and major commerce areas first!!!
Whats going to be left for your city or town? the local PD? haahaaaha,..right, most of them are Hitlers with a badge.

Nearly 375,00 Military and "Private"Contractors plus 80k Iraqi's armed with Americas finest
military hardware cant do it in Bagdad, think they can do it in LA,. or NY city?
In the event of a disaster how many Cops and National Guardsmen will simply stay home to provide and protect their own families instead of patrolling the "beat". So where will they get the manpower from? U.N. troops?? I'll be damned if that will be tolerated. There are millions of us Ex-Military out here in "Hicksville" or where ever that will not allow that to stand.
I know some folks believe that GOVT. is nearly a god and should do all and be all to each and every citizen.

I do NOT! Im a free-born citizen of the united states of America,..not the UNITED STATES of AMERICA,... a very big difference.

Too many have bought that "pig in the poke" lie that govt. is here to provide and to take you not know thats the is very basic premise of Socialism?
Same shitty lies that Obamma and Clinton and McCain are selling,....pure snake-oil and people love it so.
Understand the the FED. GOVT. IS THE ENEMY! and you are their slave labour

Im not here to argue or cause dissention,..there's enough of that going on now,....we all need to survive,...if the city is what one wants,..Hey, be it,..the country side, be it.

For me and mine,..I just see better odds in feeding and protecting my own than waiting for others to do it for me,...if they even would!

Anonymous said...

as a city dweller i'm glad to see there is a survival page for us :-)

living in a good sized north-east city i can tell you all hell will break lose in the event of even minor disaster. ( our city was shut down by a snowstorm last December )

people get real nasty with a minor inconvenience . it will get very ugly after a few days

my plan is to lay low , light discipline and wait for things to settle down.

thanks to public housing located near my dwelling , a confrontation with the low life's will not be practical

an interesting read is the "Argentinian Perspective' it talks about economical collapse and the hard existence afterward.

i don't think living in the city after a crisis is a good idea . unfortunately it's the only one i have right now.

getting out of the city will be impossible unless on foot or some other unconventional means. ( i'm working on a water borne escape to take advantage of the harbor)

a well stocked , year round boat presents it's own obstacles.

let's hope we all do well in the next "event"


Anonymous said...

Living in a suburban or even urban area might actually prove more tenable, in the long run, assuming a slow crash scenario. History backs this up, from Rome and ancient Egypt to the Soviet Union and Argentina, the rural hinterlands proved to be the worst place to try and eak out a living and the first place law, order, and similar infrastructure failed. As the situation worsened, people actually moved into the towns and cities, not away from them, and often banditry took over the countryside, where the few hearty souls who tried to hang on found themselves increasingly out of touch, isolated, and on their own.

Though many survivalist types think salvation is an isolated homestead in the country (one notable exception being FerFAL, who has written extensively on the Argentinian crisis and aftermath), that was not the case for Rome or for the Maya (per Tainter and Diamond). In both cases, people moved nearer the cities in the decades before the collapse. Taxes grew so high in Rome that many farmers simply abandoned their land. It was easier to get food in the cities than on the farms that grew it. Many laws passed involved ways to tax abandoned land. Eventually, Rome passed laws ordering that the sons of farmer be farmers themselves, but then had to spend more resources on enforcing those laws.

Less is known about the Maya, but they, too clustered closer to the cities as the end approached. Likely this was because isolated farms and villages were vulnerable to raids. They already are in many countries (South Africa, Sierra Leone, Argentina during their 1999-2003 crisis, Northern Ireland during the IRA days, etc). Too many people, not enough food, and no way out leads to only one outcome: warfare.

During the Russian revolution and civil war (1918-1922), while some did survive the famine living in remote places, most people moved toward the cities - the cities and their armies that created the famine by conscripting the peasants and then sending troops into the country side to collect food. A lot of the ensuing famine (millions died) was caused by the seeds being taken by the city dwellers and eaten. Agricultural collectivism was the result.

During the Great Depression (Dust Bowl anyone?), city folks stood in bread lines and worked for peanuts, but rural folks lost the farm, small farm towns became ghost towns, business and jobs evaporated, and they either starved, hopped a freight to the city, or moved to Hoovervilles. Read the Grapes of Wrath.
Even being debt free was no salvation, taxes still had to be paid and needed supplies purchased. Many small towns became literal ghost towns. Crime was rampant in these areas (Bonny and Clyde, Dillinger, et. al.)
Logistical links (trucks and rail) will stop delivering to small towns before they stop delivering to big cities. Something to contemplate.

Anonymous said...

I could go on regarding more modern nations in crisis, from Northern Ireland to Sierra Leone, from South Africa to the Soviet Union, from Argentina to Iraq, but the story is always the same (according to those who actually lived there), you were always better off in the towns and cities than way out in the sticks.

Isolate farm = soft target.

Anonymous said...

The fallacy with most arguments put forth here is that today's Cities are surrounded by Suburbia. Unlike days of old where cities were walled fortresses surrounded by farms.

In a collapse the city folk will be busy plundering the wealthy 'burbs. Lawlessness will prevail as already established gangs take over and create their own empires. In many cities this has already happened. There will be no "Authorities" save for the gangs.

In my rural AO newcomers are advised to get guns by the locals. There are just no police here and at best they will show up to collect evidence and photos if called.

Most city types would not last long out here, even if they are organized and armed. Reality is not hollywood, even the "outdoorsmen" we get during hunting season are all but helpless without their SUV's and Quads.

The Urban Survivalist said...

Not every city is rife with gang activity and crime. In my area the meth heads in the countryside are a bigger threat than the gang banger wannabes in the city. Those guys aren't going to bother coming to town when they start to get hungry when they can just hit the little homesteads and small towns in the area. I know from first hand experience that not all small town, rural USA residents are gun loving patriots that can't wait to blow someone away that wants to take their stuff.

Anonymous said...

my city has it's usual welfare riff-raff. there is some gang activity , but not allot.

cities being liberal for the most part discourage gun ownership and there isn't allot of people who prepare for emergencies because they rely on the city government.

suburbanites might fare better if they form a neighborhood watch type of group. although most would have an old hunting rifle and one box of shells.

because of a city ordnance we have police officers that have to reside in the city , but it's my guess they will leave for the safety of the suburbs ( with family )

there are many "plans" in place that have been drawn up and written into place by the local government. but after talking to police and fire fighters , most of the emergency workers will flee the city with everybody else.

evacuation routes , disaster shelters and the like will be non-existent. politicians have written up these plans only to assuage the public.

the city could be a very rough place to be and defending ones life could be a very real possibility.