Over the past two weeks, I have released a series on prepper relocation that completely changes the old conventional theories that drove prepper relocation strategies (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/?s=prepper+relocation). The key takeaway you learned from the research is that you do not need to relocate to a remote region to survive. In fact, it is actually counterproductive to be too isolated. Now that you know relocation to a place like Idaho is no longer necessary and even counterproductive, where are the best places to relocate? The good news is that you have far greater options depending on what you are prepping for in light of the results of my research. In today’s conclusion to the five part series, I will introduce you to both domestic and international options that are readily available to anyone looking for a thorough, full spectrum relocation strategy that will work even under the most extreme situations. Read more
Search results for prepper relocation
One of the single biggest mistakes preppers make is that they buy into the myth that relocating to a small region in the North West corner of the United States is their “best” chance of survival. As you now know from my previous three articles in this series, this theory is inaccurate and is not based on any sound research. Further, it causes people to unnecessarily incur significant additional costs and difficulties when developing their preparedness plans. However, what you still may not know is that there is a large body of empirical evidence that repeatedly demonstrates people living in isolated, remote areas are often at the greatest risk during wide spread social chaos and collapse. Not coincidentally, these people also suffer some of the most hardships. Therefore, with respect to our contemporary situation in the United States, preppers relocating to Idaho with the explicit intent to escape an oppressive government and or are planning to escape widespread instability during a systemic collapse of the system might very well be signing their death warrants. Instead, contrary to contemporary prepping strategies, it would be better to be closer if not in the midst of a more densely populated area.
I understand what I just wrote probably sent many readers into anger and shock. Nonetheless, it is far better to get the right information now then to continue along a misguided path to destruction. No doubt, some readers will immediately discount what I am about to say because they are blinded by their own preconceived biases. I cannot help those people. Thankfully, the majority of my readers are intelligent thinking people that will quickly grasp the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence and modify their preparedness strategies accordingly. In fact, don’t take my word alone, I invite everyone to conduct their own independent research into our prepping assumptions and disseminate their findings.
My theories seem counterintuitive to the premise that the farther from people you are, the farther from harm you are. This is because the basic assumptions of this safety distance premise are flawed. As the theory goes, in the event of a collapse or major catastrophe, being located away from people in a remote, self-sufficient redoubt is your best chance. I have already discussed why the 300 mile rule is a useless metric and that the notion of a “Golden Horde” of refugees fleeing a city and destroying all in their wake is equally unfounded and completely untrue. The last pillar of this theory is that being isolated conveys additional survival benefits. To test it accurately, one must evaluate case studies from around the world and then correctly apply them to a realistic scenario domestically. Read more
Before I post Part IV, I want to pause and recap the huge amount of ground already covered in parts one and two of this series (See links below to read and catch up). Previously, I showed that the most common assumptions preppers base their relocation decisions on are completely false and actually counterproductive to outright dangerous. The research I presented is groundbreaking within our community because it completely overturned the very foundation of what many have spent a lifetime basing their preps around. Understandably, some people within the prepper community have received the new information as radical heresy and immediately took to the defense. When new information is presented to any community, this visceral reaction is to be expected. After all, it challenged their entire basis for their preps and in this case, proved that much of their foundational assumptions were based on bad information. Read more
In part one of our series on “Prepper Relocation,” I directly addressed a common false logic amongst preppers that led to bad conclusions regarding why one should relocate to Idaho. Specifically, I challenged the idea that a bunker was a viable long term survival strategy for a major catastrophe many prep for such as nuclear war. Simply establishing a second residence in a modern first world location like Santiago, Singapore, or New Zealand offer far better options for survival, both physically and economically, than hiding in a hole while a nuclear war is carried out above you. Today, I continue the slaughter of the sacred cows and challenge the merits of relocating to a site far from other people. As I previously discussed, relocation isn’t a subject to take lightly. It may be the single most important decision a prepper makes and therefore any plan should be heavily vetted before time and money is invested in executing it. Therefore, one must consider counter arguments to contemporary “expert” recommendations. By leveraging the information in this series, you will be far better prepared to develop a personalized answer to what truly is you “best prepper place to relocate.”
Contemporary prepper logic states that the farther your relocation site is from dense centers of population, the better. In fact, the magic number often touted is that you must be at least 300 miles from any major population center. However, is this really the case? This is very important because if 300 miles is accurate, it severely constrains your relocation options. If it is not a valid constraint, then suddenly you have many good options for relocation depending on the specific scenario you are prepping for. As such, let’s examine what that conclusion is premised upon. Breaking the theory down, you have two main hypotheses to vet. The first is that 300 miles provides a necessary and adequate buffer from an urban center. The second is that from said urban area a horde of starving refugees will emerge and overrun your redoubt.
Let me be the first to tell you neither hypothesis constituting this prepper theory, which to date has been held up as prepper law, is valid. Read more
I routinely read articles online where individuals pontificate about where the best places for preppers to live or relocate too are. What I don’t usually see is any real cognitive effort to do a realistic analysis and assessment. This should be a red flag. Selecting your relocation site is one of the most important decisions a prepper must make. It is too important to be made on hearsay and opinions. Therefore, I am going to question that contemporary prepper relocation logic. I am going to debunk common myths and offer better alternatives that will help you develop a personalized answer to what truly is you “best prepper place to relocate.” When this series is complete, you will be armed with critical information necessary for identifying your ideal relocation spot. Don’t be surprised if after this eye opening series your philosophy on how you previously evaluated and envisioned your relocation site looks completely different.
Most preparedness “experts” would define the common prepper relocation logic is to find a place as far as possible from other people in an area still suitable for an off-grid, self-sustaining lifestyle. This implies the location has ample water, good soil, and a good growing season. Add a couple wild card factors like being outside the blast radius and fallout pattern of a nuclear detonation and avoiding known earthquake prone areas and most preppers conclude that Idaho is the choice destination. James Wesley Rawles, a man well known and respected throughout the prepper community and a recognized expert on the field is a big advocate of this relocation option. In Rawles’ defense, Idaho may indeed be a good location for some preppers for some reasons. However, Rawles and many others are basing many of their primary assumptions on outdated information, obsolete tactics and techniques, and generally old school logic that when tested in real world scenarios, fails. I don’t take this indictment lightly. If we get this wrong, we die and that is why it is so important we first question some of the fundamental assumptions the conventional prepper relocation plan is based upon. Read more