Survival – Prepping Prepper

One of the two acronyms those new to prepping or survivalism quickly become acquainted with is TEOTWAWKI, or The End Of The World As We Know It (the other being variations of SHTF, or Sh*t Hit The Fan). The vast majority of survivalists/preppers define TEOTWAWKI as a total collapse type event. This could be from financial collapse, nuclear war, plague, etc., but something that would cause enough interruption of services that trade, communications, transportation, etc. would fail. Most expect equally wide chaos and loss or rule of law to follow. Hence the focus on beans, bullets, and Band-Aids in the survivalist community. “The End” rather than “An Interruption,” though it’s not unexpected that civilization – and government – would reorganize eventually. So I was a bit surprised at the reactions to this comment at the Survivalist Blog recently: SHTF blog August 11th, 2010 at 8:04 PM If I knew when TEOTWAWKI was gonna hit the first thing I’d do would be to take out 8,000 different credit cards and max them all out on gear and equipment. Then I’d spend the rest of the time enjoying the easy life before it all goes down the toilet. Clearly the TEOTWAWKI expected here is a total collapse. Not a financial depression, not a tropical storm or tornado, and so on, but what survivalists think of when TEOTWAWKI is mentioned; total collapse. The hypothetical topic of the post being commented on, What Do You Do When You’re Given The Deadline For Teotwawki? and the content in that post implied as much. Now I’d read that and pretty much agree – if we’re looking at total collapse, no reason not to use the credit cards. Won’t be paying my utilities afterwards either. I’d probably also empty my 401k and other savings. But two things happened. First the author of the post replied back trying to undermine that comment using an alternative definition of TEOTWAWKI related more to a severe economic depression that the one most survivalists subscribe to. True, TEOTWAWKI may mean something different to a few, but clearly not the vast majority. Second, a few holier than thou commenters tore into Ranger Man, prompting his reply at his blog since his comments in defense of himself were mostly deleted. I understand his frustration, since my comments critical of an alternative meaning of TEOTWAWKI were also deleted or just not approved (twice). Which is why I’m writing here instead of commenting there. Of course that blog owner can do as they please, king in their realm, I just don’t seem myself writing comments there very often, since if they hint at disagreeing with the author, those comments are apt to disappear. Back to the definition of TEOTWAWKI. Of course there is no official definition. Still I’ll go with what the vast majority of survivalists and preppers mean by it; a total collapse. TEOTWAWKI Roundtable Discussion Blogger intrigue at its best! No seriously, as I was reading the posts, and thinking about how I would define these terms, something horribly obvious occured to me… I could have been deleting the comments I disagreed with on my blog all along! I mean to hell with free speech, in fact I could edit the comments in my favor. Instead of the usual “Your writing belongs in the fiery pits of hell forever” …. I could edit it to say “Your writing belongs forever”…. And if I’ve learned anything from the Internet it’s how to do something illicit or detrimental to someone. Btw, great blog :) Why can’t you all just get along? If this was all I had to worry about life would be grand. I read a number of survival type blogs and must say I’m very disappointed in most of what I see. Personal attacks and whimpering like a bunch of little girls boo hoo someone deleted my comment grow up will you… Most of you survival blogger could not survive a snow storm. much less teotwawkni. You should feel real proud you just made yourself look like an ass and a crybaby. Looks like you’ve done the same thing you are accusing someone else of doing since my comment seems to have been deleted. Suburban,I read that and thought it was BS.Creekmore seems like ok dude but I thimk now that he’s gone all commercial he must play nice with his fan base.Rangerman was right if its the end of the world as we know it and I am not ready I see no problem with maxing em out.And I am not a thief,I normally have pretty high morals,but if we are talking protecting your family,well.Chances are when the time comes the fella who was ripping on Rangerman won’t be so high and mighty!I think that dude took it way to serious. Being THE holier than thou contributor with which you are referring, please explain why it is right to “get yours” at the expense of others? Here is the deal SS, when someone chooses to do the wrong thing, you name it – stealing, rape, murder, arson, it doesn’t matter to which degree, it is innately wrong. Why does an individual have a sense of guilt when doing the wrong thing? If you were to do right, your conscious would not be affected in a negative sense, it’s quite the opposite. So now … Ranger Man and 10,000 others who prescribe to his … philosophy decide to max out the credit cards and tell the bank to get stuffed, we are not paying. Got it so far? An acceptable thing when TEOTWAWKI is here as you have stated. Then that bank that holds YOUR 401K & savings money goes belly up because their investments (your money) were tied into a hedge fund linked to the bank that defaulted. You can kiss your retirement money good bye unless it gets out of receivership or if the FDIC still has money to pay claims. But wait, that’s not fair you cry as you shake you fist at the bank president or the media covering the story. Don’t think that could happen? Look up IndyMac Bank, that’s exactly what happened along with 100′s of others. So what started off as a little pebble at the top of the mountain became a massive snowball & just slammed into and killed everyone in the lodge at the base of the mountain. People, like you sitting there, minding their own business & enjoying life now devastated by something that started off as a simple action. Next, MD elected to edit his post & I believe it was the correct thing to because it economized the “argument”, keeping things on the main point the lack of integrity. If you read what I wrote I was clear and specific about stealing and doing the right thing and it went unaddressed by Ranger, Christine, the SHTF Blog, and now you. Do you know why? You can’t successfully defend the wrong action. You all act like a bunch of clowns at the circus distracting the audience and not dealing with reality. Do you honestly think that is the mindset of a survivalist? Right up front, see the comments policy on the About page. Keep it civil and respectful. Period. I’ve edited out the personal attacks in your comment. I’m also not going to respond to the straw man arguments/red herrings your comment is full of. Clean up your future comments, if any. That’s your first/last warning. I’m going to distill your comment down to the core complaint and disregard the fluff; “please explain why it is right to ‘get yours’ at the expense of others?” referring to maxing out credit cards in the hypothetical situation one knew TEOTWAWKI was going to occur in a month. Using the widely accepted view of TEOTWAWKI, your question is logically flawed and therefore irrelevant. The outcome is the same in these two opposing hypothetical situations; (1) if I use my credit card normally, the credit card company will not be able to collect, and; (2) if I max out my credit card, the credit card company will not be able to collect. Again, in the event of TEOTWAWKI. In either case there is no “expense to others” since the entire system is presumed to have failed. Even using an alternative and less widely accepted definition of TEOTWAWKI that could include another Great Depression, you are presuming there would be “expense to others,” which would only be the case if the one maxing out credit cards filed for bankruptcy or something along those lines. Aside from being fundamentally in error in premise, your presentation of the question is like asking the question, “Why do you think it’s right to beat your wife?” to someone who doesn’t believe that. A common tactic used in debates, but not very useful for honest discussion. Finally, I question the honesty of anyone who says they’d not to obtain all they could, even by maxing out credit cards, before a total collapse if they KNEW it was coming. Flat out don’t believe it. And good luck in paying your bills after TEOTWAWKI. Found on Mayberry Keep It Simple Survival pretty much says it all. “Now there’s a phrase that gets used frequently in the prepper/survivalist/”doomer” community, which is TEOTWAWKI, or The End Of The World As We Know It. I’ve always stressed the As We Know It part, because in the absence of a doomsday asteroid or something, the world will not end when the economy/government collapses. It will change some, but it won’t end.” Absolutely not. This is why. In the case of Creekmore’s TEOTWAWKI post, comments (mine) were removed apparently for being slightly critical of his alternative definition, but in a constructive manner. My comments were entirely civil and could not be mistaken personal attacks (i.e., name calling, etc.). Ranger Man’s complaint, as I understand it, was that unoffensive portions of his comments defending himself were edited out, and seamlessly at that so that a reader would never know the text had been removed. I did not remove any text substantive to your argument. The text I removed from your comment were simple personal attacks that have no place here. Any questions? Suburban Survivalist 16 August 2010 at 9:32 pm comsteats, The “as we know it” generally revers to civilization, not the literal world. Most understand that a breakdown in electricity, product delivery (including fuels, which means transportation), comms, etc. will quickly result in the breakdown of society, chaos, probably a large die off, etc. And that society will eventually reform, perhaps a few months (less likely) or a few years (more likely), and that would include government, law, and so on. It seems that I am not the only one that has complaints about the heavy handedness … going on over at Creekmoores Survivalist Blog. Seems like Ranger Man got the short end of the stick this time. Sorry Ranger man. I reported … in a previous post here: http://newdawnsurvival.com/blog5/2010/08/08/review-survivalist-blog/ Why yes I have a question! Why don’t you use the same yardstick in your editing? In one section you use “…” to eliminate a word then, in another section you deleted the entire sentence. You state you did not delete anything substantive and I disagree. Further, the last sentence you eliminated was purely factual with a infinitesimal inference as to Ranger Man’s disposition. Either way, you did not change the context of my point & I suppose I should be thankful. I guess I’ll keep supposing … <— I added those dots. When I have to delete inappropriate text, I remove as little as possible w/o rewriting a sentence, just a word or two if possible and no context is lost. Where I deleted entire sentences it was b/c they were so interlaced with personal attacks that it required a rewrite, which I’m not doing. The sentence you refer to as being “purely factual” was half your opinion and the other half was a personal attack – doesn’t’ fly here. I think that’s pretty fair. So you reduce it to my opinion & say I am lacing in character attacks yet, you handled those supposed laced digs in a prior sentence … interesting. Since when is wrong, right? I find you to be a contradiction. You use Clint Eastwood as you identifier but do not mirror his resolute character. Now go ahead, make my day … Thanks to everyone for all the interest in The Survivalist Blog. I do have one quick correction, no fault of RM or Suburban Survivalist – in the comments of the mentioned post, I also deleted / edited several negative / aggressive comments that were directed toward Ranger Man and others. The part I removed from his comment was (I thought) in response to a comment of my own which I had removed in hopes of preventing a flame war, making said part of his comment redundant to the conversion, or at least so I thought. It is nothing personal against him or anyone else but an attempt on my part to make the comments more useful to my readers. The sentence you are referring to would have required a re-write after deleting all the ad hominem, and I’m not going to edit a string of personal attacks and opinion only to be accused of changing context. Your guidelines are vague & weak and I do not need a rewrite – I am clear and to the point. I’m sorry you find it intimidating but understand. “Interest” is an interesting way of putting it, though it seems to miss the point. Editing Ranger Man’s comment to make it “more useful,” and to prevent a flame war? Forgive me if I come off as skeptical, but that explanation sounds bizarre considering the other comments on that particular post, and inconsistent considering comments at your blog in general. You allowed that very flame war to continue, though lopsidedly by deleting text from Ranger Man’s responses to his antagonists, if I understand my correspondence with him correctly. And let’s be clear, you later reinstated that comment of yours, at least it was there (again) when this post was originally put up. In response to the email you sent me; No, I do not think my method of editing/deleting comments is apt to be seen as hypocritical by my readers, since I have been critical of your methods (a caveat; readers with any common sense). Why? My policy is on the About page; (a) personal attacks and (b) being off-topic is grounds for editing/deletion (note that being critical of me in a civil manner doesn’t trigger this). The edits I make in an offending comment are clearly visible when posted and do not change context, as even Jason admitted above. No one has to guess about their comment being made “more useful” or being deleted for being slightly critical of some point of mine. As I’ve noted a few times, your blog, your kingdom, you can obviously edit any of it as you see fit. But the explanation about making comments “more useful” and trying to stop flame wars just don’t hold water. Ranger Man and I made comments that disagreed with something you wrote (common usage of a survivalist term, in my case), and those comments were either deleted (in my case, twice) or edited. I haven’t read anything to dissuade me from that view, on the contrary. If you think that a policy of being “civil” is too vague, I guess you’ll have to learn as you go. I’m not going to babysit. One hint, ad hominem is not considered civil. Good luck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Spare me the Wikipedia – I studied Latin in college & you are a bit off using that term. That’s to be expected ~ Sorry you feel that way – looks like the best course of action on your part would be to stop commenting on my blog as this would prevent misunderstanding or hurt feelings in the future. You’re right about not commenting there, but it’s not about a misunderstanding or “hurt feelings” (c’mon Creekmore). I don’t want to waste my time writing a comment that is apt to be deleted because you can’t take a little criticism, or being stealthily edited to be “more useful.” You’ve used about every type of ad hominen listed on that Wikipedia page in personal attacks on others in the comments at MD’s blog. There’s no correlation between knowing a few Latin words and not engaging in ad hominem. Not even if you change yours to Nancy Pelosi. You violated the commentor policy on this blog! I’m emailing the …. oh, I forgot, heh, heh – you determine what is fair. And yes, thank you – Wikipedia … the cyber substitution for college. Suburban Survivalist 17 August 2010 at 10:37 pm Don’t get upset b/c I’m away from a computer for a couple hours and don’t approve your comment ASAP. Some of us have actual jobs. Yeah, instead of a link to some subject with several subtopics, I’ll suggest readers take a course on it instead, that’s a way better idea. Your comments were in the spam filter of WordPress for whatever reason. Probably that means you commented on a WordPress blog in the past and your comments were considered spam by that administrator. You say, “…whimpering like a bunch of little girls boo hoo someone deleted my comment grow up will you…” And less than an hour later you complain, “Looks like you’ve done the same thing you are accusing someone else of doing since my comment seems to have been deleted.” That’s pretty funny, though unintentionally. Here’s my take and I been watching MDs blog for awhile, this one for a litte while. Theres some good stuff at MDs sometimes especially from guest writers like that one on trapping. Anyway he doesn’t like when people don’t agree with him and he’s got plenty of people there that agree with anything he says and I mean anything. Probably he just got a big head and gets mad when somebody says something different to what he says, kinda insecure. Say something he don’t like and its gone. Seems kinda flaky. He talks bad about James Rawles out the side of his mouth and lets that trash talk run wild in comments but what MD really wants is a setup just like James Rawles, but hes really outclassed there. [edit] You’ve summed it up well with those observations. Noticed some of that myself. Note, had to edit the last sentence. Please see the About page for comments policy – thank you. Note to Jason: Your last two comments aren’t in line with the comment policy (on topic); this is not an adolescent forum for you to elaborate on how snarky you think you are. Update 20 Aug: Yeah, insulting me will result in your comments – that don’t follow the policy – being approved. Seriously, please grow up. Good blog wtih practical links. I also was musing about the definition of TEOTWAWKI and TSHTF and did the write first read later method – which is instantly gratifying yet I am wondering if about if I captured all the basic differences that I think really exist out there in how people look at what kind of change we are going to see and how fast that change is going to hit us. I may revise some of my thoughts after reading your blog. Thanks.