Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:17:45 -0700 From: "A.C." Subject: Models for survival, by Daniel New Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Glad you qualified "serf," Daniel, as I was thinking before I read on, that "corpse" definitely sounds better. Put that way, the serf model sounds pretty good--quite logical in fact, even as a norm. A serf to oneself and contributing to the family unit and to the immediate community, and slave almost to the property of oneself, is to posses the riches and freedom of a king, actually, as opposed to being a serf in, or to, the city, (especially a city in utter chaos) slaving for FEMA in a ration depot or as a prowling "curfew breaker" snitch, miserably underpaid, laboring with constant, stressful traffic and people, if one is fortunate enough to retain any semblance of measly civility and, even do that, as opposed to being without any employment, living under bridges or behind bushes in a park, dodging the minions of criminal opportunists. Some wonderful suggestions, you have, Daniel. Thanks. ac Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 19:50:07 -0500 From: daniel new Reply-To: ddnew@bigfoot.com Organization: National Action Forum To: ddnew Subject: Models for survival Some Thoughts on Survival by Daniel New THE SURVIVALIST Those who correspond with other concerned with Y2K and its consequences frequently read posts which explain how the end is near, and if you don't know how to survive in the wild with nothing but a pocket-knife and a piece of flint, you are going to die, and while it's probably too late, you ought to start practicing now anyway, maybe you'll get lucky, etc. I don't want to take away anything from those who have acquired the skills for existing in the wilds. It requires a far greater education than existing in the corporate world today. I admire those skills, I wish mine were greater than they are, and I encourage everyone to improve their survival skills, not only for Y2K, but to be prepared for any emergency. Having said that, I wish to point out that the Survivalist Model is not going to help 99.44% of the population. Even with most of us not having those skills, in TEOTWAWKI scenarios, it will take about a week for virtually ALL the game within 100 miles every town to be killed off. (Some animals hibernate. We'll eat them later!) It's imperative that we think about other models and that we figure out a plan of action that is practical, and we work on that plan. It is not likely that, in almost any "worst case scenario," that everyone will be rounded up and shot, or that everyone will die. If that happens, then nothing we do now will make any difference, will it? Not everyone. There are numerous things you can do, primarily having to do with geography, that will reduce you chances of being trapped inside a major city or even a minor city (I never heard of a "minor city," but if they have major cities, they must have minor cities!). Like moving. Like now. Don't plan to put your house on the market the day after Christmas. (But I will say this -- if you're a high roller, it will be a buyer's market that week!) Consider other models. FARMING MODEL Not only will farmers be safer because they're further away from the welfare riots and food riots, but because they usually grow a lot of their own food, pump their own water, and are well armed. They can see things coming from further away. If you can buy land and relocate, do it now. If you have the money, buy some land. But land, and I mean productive land, is a rich man's game. In which case you can forget about more extreme models. SERF MODEL No one likes to think of themselves as serfs. It has a perjorative connotation. But I think the term "serf" still has a better ring to it than the term "corpse." I'm not talking here about selling yourself into slavery in order to survive. I know that too many of us were brought up on "Live free...or die!" to accept such a proposal. Consider this. When the Communists took a thorough census of the remote steppes of Russia, around 1920, they were amazed to find that more than ten times the number of people lived there than were known by the Czarist government. Why? Because people didn't want their sons sent to die in wars in which they had no stake. People didn't want their daughters forced into service for the rich. People didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes. So what did they do? They simply didn't report the births of their children!!!!!! How very simple. Those children, not known to the State, grew up living on farms and in tiny hamlets all over Russia, without numbers, without papers, without taxes, without forced military service, and without Big Brother. The Orthodox priests knew the people were there, but they cooperated with their parishioners. Yes, they were limited in their ability to travel. They rarely went to town, if ever. They NEVER went to the city. They stayed on the farm and worked, sunup to sundown. They never heard of minimum wage. Most never heard of wages! But they survived, got married, had children, and stayed out of way of the bureaucrats. The operative principle here is that they survived. Could you not, if you had to, just sort of disappear on your cousin's uncle's farm three states away? Well, maybe your cousin's uncle would receive the idea better if you gently broach the subject with him in August of 1999, not January of 2000. Next January, he'll probably receive you, grudgingly, because you're family and he will count the cost of not receiving you. But if you and he can come to an understanding now, something tells me he certainly wouldn't begrudge allowing you to put a portable building or a trailer on the back of his property, and coming over every weekend and putting emergency supplies in it. The best way to make yourself welcome at a party is to bring something to contribute. Take a hint. Read that sentence over and over. If he has a working farm, chances are he's pretty dependent on fossil fuels and machinery. Should there suddenly be a shortage of such supplies, he's going to need a dependable source of labor. The relationship, bound to have its frictions and culture shock, can be mutually advantageous. It's radical. But it's not near as radical as trying to survive, with your wife and children, in a dugout in the national forest, living off birds eggs and fern tips. The nice thing about this last model is that if you buy a few calves now, and store up some supplies, and Y2K turns out to be a "bump in the road," what harm have you done? You'll make a profit on the calves (or you'll eat them), you'll have beat inflation next year by buying much of your supplies in advance, and you'll have spent some time on the farm with your kids. I can think of worse scenarios. Like not doing anything. That ought to be enough to get the creative juices flowing. ---------- TEOTWAWKI = "The End of the World As We Know It" Daniel New, Author/Inventor/Farmer/Project Manager for the Michael New Action Fund and the National Action Forum. Visit our website: <http://www.mikenew.com/ cccc,0000,0000"Real Americans don't wear UN blue!" <<<<<<<< --------------D213DDA91D02E52E4E291976--