The level of encroachment of government into our lives correlates very closely to the amount of freedom a person enjoys. It should come as no surprise that the more the government dictates every aspect of a person’s life, the less freedom that person has. Dating as far back as early English Common Law, it has been recognized and well established that without respect for property rights there can be no freedom. Alarmingly, over the last year, state and federal governments have massively expanded the scope of intrusion into our lives and all but abolished the last vestiges of property “rights.” As a result, the number of examples of egregious violations of rights has been piling up. Three cases in particular highlight the utter destruction of property rights. Read more
Archive for Off Grid Living
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
This week I read a piece by “Mac” MacWelch of Advanced Survival Training (http://www.advancedsurvivaltraining.com/). In it he argues that the lone wolf survivor is a myth. Unless preppers set aside small differences and organize your chances of surviving a true chaos event is small. I am glad to see his article and completely agree. I have been working for years to educate people on this exact subject and I am very happy to see attitudes and minds within the greater prepper community have finally begun to embrace this very basic, but very critical aspect of survival. I don’t want to understate the importance of this survival attitude gaining traction. Once “preppers” start to see themselves as a part of a greater community instead of independent and fearful of the community, we will make significant progress toward free, safe, and independent lives.
I want to reference my article from 2013 on the “Greatest Prepper Weakness.” (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2013/12/02/overcoming-the-greatest-prepper-weakness-the-individual-versus-the-community-and-a-plan-for-the-future/) The article garnered quite a bit of response from individuals across the US, but it was clear that it woke people up. I ask all of you to read it and ponder what is being proposed. Like Mac, I argue that preppers must erase the walk away and hide till it’s over mentality because it isn’t a viable survival strategy. This isn’t just my opinion. It is based on learned real life experience and what I practice. (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/01/27/when-the-shtf-you-can-come-to-my-placeseriously/) I have witnessed nations in all stages of chaos and in every single place the people that were doing the best were the ones that stuck together in big groups. Those of you that still feel that you can run to the mountains and lock yourself in your bunker I applaud your preparations, but ask you to reconsider your actual survival odds versus uniting with other like-minded people with diverse and useful skillsets. If you really feel your preps are sufficient, please write me and we can discuss hundreds of real world examples that prove beyond any doubt the strategy does not work beyond a very short term. The articles provide a plan of action and not just arguments about how best to prep. Only by uniting, putting aside petty differences, and working toward the greater good will we come out of this in good order. Feel free to contact me with questions, but for now, I wish you all the best of luck and hope to see you in my community someday.
By Guiles Hendrik
July 12, 2016
I get asked a lot about what my preferred techniques and tools are for starting a fire. Many items are on the market from old school flint and steel to lighters, matches, and magnesium fire steels that shower your tinder with hot sparks. So for “last minute survival,” what would be my best choice if I could only choose one? Further, why are there so many fire steel “sparker” devices? Are they really that good and should I have one? The good news is I have a definitive answer for you so read on.
My answer is that in a survival situation, your best fire starter is whatever gets the fire reliably started in the quickest and most energy efficient manner. What works is what I carry and that is a simple lighter. In fact, it is one of the three items I never go anywhere without and always have on my person. What I have witnessed in the real world over and over is that for the average person, a simple lighter is by far your best choice. Even when instructing experienced outdoorsman, the lighter is still the choice fire starter and the one that most people see the quickest and most consistent success when starting a fire. This isn’t an accident. The lighter is very convenient, works well, and most people are comfortable operating one even in complete darkness. Lighters are also very forgiving and can allow one to maintain the flame to light larger tinder items that spark type ignition methods are not capable of igniting. Lighters are small and light enough that a person can carry a small backup lighter in a waterproof container in their pack and still always have a primary on their person. Further, you can operate a lighter even when your dexterity is diminished such as during the mid to late stages of hypothermia when getting a fire started immediately is critical to survival. Lighters also can still operate after being wet if allowed to dry out and they can also provide some temporary light. They don’t get soggy and absorb moisture like matches. Finally, lighters are available all over the world and are one of the cheapest fire starting tools available. Read more
Think cheap oil is good for the economy? Not when it is caused by low demand from economies in free fall. This may come as a surprise to some Americans currently enjoying the price of much cheaper gas, but if you are a Canadian, you are suffering as your currency is rapidly losing its value. The Canadian lesson should serve as a reminder that this can and will happen even in First World countries.
How would it affect you to see your grocery bills increase by 5%, then 10%, then 30%, then even higher? Canadians are suffering this reality today. Prices of food items increased as much as 38% in 2015. (See: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ155b-eng.htm) However, this is using the government’s averaged figures and totally discounts areas in Canada where prices have spiked far higher. What is worse, 2016 is already on track to see even higher price spikes and Canadians literally unable to afford even the basic food staples. Soon Canada could be experiencing a true food emergency. Read more
Did you know that if you have even a small subsistence farm to grow and or raise food for your family it all could be confiscated. Did you know the government is currently trying to identify and register all food producers to support this goal? Whether you are aware or not, at any time the president deems necessary, the US can now confiscate key resources in the name of national security. In particular, the food you worked hard to grow or raise could be seized. Naturally, it makes no sense to spend your time and money developing a farming capability to insulate your family from hard times only to have it seized. By following a few basic rules, you can help to protect your food supply and ensure those that helped cause the collapse and refused to prepare aren’t fed on your watch.
President Obama also nationalized our nation’s food supply through executive order. (See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness) This executive order effectively orders the heads of various agencies to include the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to identify critical resources under their purview and develop policies on how to ensure their production and procurement during national emergencies. As with most government regulation, this order on the surface doesn’t sound too draconian. However, the devil is in the details regarding its implementation. In order for the USDA to “secure” the US food supply, it becomes necessary to identify everyone involved in food production. Once identified, then upon order, the USDA can send nationalized goon squads to confiscate any and all “critical resources” deemed necessary for national security. National security may very soon include declaring “preppers” “extremists and depriving them of their stores of food. In this particular case, it could involve your entire crop. Read more
You know what they say about imitation. If rewriting the work of others is included, I should be happy because The Daily Sheeple (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/) featured a great article today, contributed by a Joshua Krause, on “Florida Court Rules Off-Grid Living Illegal,” which was picked up and run also by http://www.infowars.com/. However, I wrote nearly the same, albeit more detailed, article almost a year and a half ago (http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/01/04/florida-outlaws-off-the-grid-living/). I appreciate the word getting out, which is the goal. However, common courtesy is that you at least put in a footnote about your sources. In fairness, when news breaks, we see a lot of articles essentially citing the same information to get the news out, but a year and a half later when you are writing, it is called research not news. Don’t get me wrong, I love checking out the articles on both The Daily Sheeple and InfoWars so please frequent these sites. However, if their contributors are going to rewrite stories I broke a year and a half ago, please, either just repost/link to the entire original article or ask me to contribute directly. We are all on the same team and there is plenty of news to still report.
Compare for yourself:
Now, getting back to the bigger picture, Robin is still being screwed by the system in Florida. Please visit her sites and support her however you can.
June 2, 2015