Talk:Survivalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] points have been addressed

looks like some of my points have been addressed - good job on the revisions Redblayd 00:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coining the term

I believe I've seen Kurt Saxon take credit for coining the term 'survivalist'. Is there verification for this? — Morning star 18:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only in Saxon's writings. I don't know if there's any outside verification for this or not. It's probably a matter of tracking down when and where the term first appeared. Kaibabsquirrel 06:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survivalist movements outside of North America?

Do they exist in any other affluent countries? Obviously in third and fourth world countries, some of the preoccupations of survivalists are very real parts of life, but I was wondering in particular if there are survivalist movements in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Japan?

-- It is primarily a North American movement. However, although the middle east exhibit some form of protective measures, it is largely a militant movement. The line is blurry, the Japanese build buildings which can survive earthquakes and there are some mild security measure ever since the underground subway toxic bombings. Whether or not this is considered a survivalist measure or an adaptive one it is hard to verify. I would suspect America would be more akin to survivalism due to intense paranoia over years and decades of isolationism Raddicks 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly I misconstrue Raddicks intended meaning, but the assertion that survivalism is more "American" because of intense paranoia and years of isolationism makes the whole mindset appear irrational. If that impression was intended, then I'd have to dispute it. Certainly there are survivalist groups and individuals whose mindsets are rather irrational; the same could be said of any broad categorization ("there is no cause so right you can't find a fool following it"). In my experience the majority of "survivalists" (which I define as persons concerned with their ability to survive and thrive after a disaster of whatever sort, who take proactive measures to prepare) are largely rational in their concerns. It is indisputable that disasters both natural and man-made do indeed occur (Katrina, Hugo, 9/11 and Three-Mile Island for examples), and even a cursory examination of disaster aftermaths displays the fragility of much of our modern infrastructure. Nor does it take a great deal of research to determine that people who were well-prepared (not just materially, but also mindset and skills) fared FAR better than those who were not. I have met survivalists who are British, Swedish, Australian, Canadian, Phillipino and "other"...and the underlying theme has always been concern about providing for and protecting their families in times of crisis: a very rational mindset indeed. -Goshin, Jan1 2006

historically, people all over the world HAD to be what could be considered survivalists. obviously, people had to know how to hunt, fish, and trap, and know how to be prepared for bad weather, etc. if they didn't know how to do these things, they would die, plain and simple. however, they wouldn't have labelled themselves as "survivalists"- this was just the way they HAD to live. Gringo300 09:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew a couple of avowed survivalists in Britain back in the Cold War days (one used to write magazine articles on the subject, I forget his name), but I'd guess one reason why there weren't many in Britain at that time was simply because there wasn't really anywhere to hide from a nuclear war. America is huge and large parts of the country would be barely affected, but few places in Britain would be more than a couple of dozen miles from a target and almost everywhere would be down-wind of one. The same probably applies to most of Europe. Mark Grant 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indigenous peoples

historically, native americans indians, eskimos, and aleuts were what could have been considered survivalists, but obviously many of them are now "modernized" like a lot of other people have also become. Gringo300 09:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group Deletion

Why is reference to a group like the Zombie Squad deleted? It is a legitimate not for profit that covers much of the same type of material as the Alpha Rubicon without seeming like they are trying to overthrow the government. I know the premise of zombies confuses some but they are getting young people to prepare so the reach is much further. --BenWoodruff 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me any mention of Zombie Survival belongs only in the fiction or pop-culture section of the article. Dragomiloff 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Is Alpha Rubicon advocating overthrowing the Government? I thought many of their members were government employees. I know some of their material is used in Government training classes. Might wanna be careful about throwing around that kind of accusation. Peace/Love/Harmony 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) DaisyPicker
Pulled --BenWoodruff 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "racist or white supremacist beliefs."

The article states that "An extreme and marginal fringe of survivalism has racist or white supremacist beliefs." The statement "marginal" needs to be qualified by concrete statistics. Otherwise I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag. I say this because the stereotype of survivalist militias (and non-militia survivalist individuals) is that many of them are white, who may not be white supremacist but are at least racist or "xenophobic" towards other ethnicities and nationalities (post-9/11 America and the anti-Islam movement obviously sparked a rise in American survivalism, given all the purchases of "emergency supplies"). As the stereotype goes, many of them anticipate a race war, hence the widespread sales of the Turner Diaries at all the gun shows of the time that many survivalists attended. Ok, like I said this is a stereotype, but it's the most common portrayal of survivalists that I've seen in texts, media, pop culture, etc. Therefore, if the article is going to contradict this and say that such a population is only "marginal" among survivalists, the idea of this being "marginal" must be backed up with statistics. If it is not, I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag, which will inevitably progess to a deletion of the words "and marginal" if no citation is added. Simply put, "marginal" is a weasel word that must be either deleted or backed up with statistics.



ok nobody has responded so i assume nobody has a problem.... im making the change

160.39.211.133 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People who HOPE society breaks down

Did anyone notice that there was a palpable sense of dissapointment among many of the survivalists when Y2K failed to bring society to its knees? In fact, Y2K failed to even inconvenience society - it was a non-event.

I think it is one thing to prudently prepare for a disaster, such as a hurricane, or to conservatively place ones assets so as to be immune from a financial panic. It is quite another to stockpile two years worth of navy beans and then sit on top of them with an arsenal of weapons hoping upon hope that society will collapse so you can lord it over everyone. There is an anti-social, pathological aspect to many of these people that I think bears mentioning in the article. george 11:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I've been reading SurvivalBlog (the most popular survivalist blog) daily since its inception in 2005, and I haven't seen ANY letters or articles from anyone that professes to hope or wish for a collapse. If anything, survivalists realize just how "nasty, brurtish, and short" life would be, post-TEOTWAWKi, so they dread it. The fact that someone prepares for different circumstanes doesn't ipso facto mean that they WANT them to happen--not any more than someone who buys car insurance "hopes" to be in a car wreck. Trasel - 9 July 2007, 7:48 PM EST

[edit] In the Media

Should we also include humorous interpretations of this idealogy, such as Dale Gribble in King of the Hill? Mwv2 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

--

I think that would open up the Wiki to flame wars and revert wars. Since survivalism is almost a religion to some people, that would be akin to opening up the wiki page on Catholicism to "humorous interpretations" such as the movie The Life of Brian. (Which earned a blasphemy rating from the Catholic church.) Although some survivalists poke fun at themselves (I have read that some enjoyed the Burt Gummer character in the movie Tremors), most would be offended. So my vote is NO. - Trasel 16:23 27 July, 2007 (EST)

[edit] Reteater

Reteater (a newly created page) redirects to this page, but there is no discussion on the page about what it has to do with Survivalism. Any ideas why? Jons63 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the following as auto re-directs, assuming they might be search phrases: retreater, retreatist, and reteater. The last was added simply as a likely typo error. -- Jeff Trasel 1739 EST 23 Dec 07.

[edit] Unsourced statements in "Other groups related to survivalism" section

I flagged two statements which appear to be unsupported or possibly just conjecture. Can anyone support these with a substantive citation? Thanks. Trasel (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since more than a week went by without anyone coming to the defense of these unsourced comments, nor was any source/citation added, I went ahead and deleted them. Trasel (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I've identified three additional statements that need support (see flags), in an attempt to reduce the amount of conjecture and/or opinion in this section. Please add citations if you can locate some that specifically mention survivalists.Trasel (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another unsourced statement was added to the description of David Brin's novel "The Postman". Source? Thanks,Trasel (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An e-mail from Brin is the source. This is the from Zombie squad forum. http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2509&sid=93f71c2ab5ec23aa981c954cfe8694f0

Yeah, I know it's a double post, but I thought I should have a seperate post for this thread.

After reading The Postman, I actually contacted David Brin to find out why survivalists were the antagonist of his book, versus some other group. Here's is my email to him:

Tomcat wrote: I just started reading your novel, The Postman last night, and so far I have found it much more enjoyable than the film. One thing I was most surprised about in your book was that the Holnists were survivalists, instead of a militia as in the movie. After reading an article about the book, I learned that you said that the book was, to an extent, an anti-survivalist book.

My question is simply why? What about the survivalist movement concerned you or motivated to use them as an antagonist of that magnitude? I understand that the militia idea used in the film was pretty non-existent in 1985, but I am curious as to your reasons for making this novel an anti-survivalist work.

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely, Tomcat


David Brin wrote: Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting message. It truly is gratifying when people write, and I always try to answer.

I certainly appreciate the encouragement.

I will append a general update below, but as for the survivalist issue, I don't think you may be recalling very well the NASTY emotional thread that underlay a lot of that movement, in the 80s. The tone was very much the way I protrayed it, leading eventually to the rationalizations of Timothy McVeigh.

This is NOT to say that survival training and preparedness are twisted, in themselves! I comsider myself to be adefinite member of that side of it, a real boy scout... which is why I was able to separate the two meanings of "militia". Two meanings that are real opposites.

With best wishes, for a confident and ambitious 21st Century,

David Brin www.davidbrin.com

[edit] Tags

[edit] article may require cleanup

  • Please list items of concern. J. D. Redding 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] represent a worldwide

  • Please list items of concern. J. D. Redding 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] additional citations for verification

  • Please list items of concern. J. D. Redding 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Zombie Nonsense

I am dismayed to see references to "Zombie Apocalypse" repeatedly creeping in to this article. Survivalism is rooted in rational thought. To mix something that could never happen (reanimation of dead people and animals) into a discussion of real world threats does survivalism a huge dis-service and discredits the entire movement. The "Zombie" crowd is fixated on a piece of fiction. While it surely deserves its own wiki page, it is NOT survivalism! Trasel (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] External links

Added a external links section for external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.64.39 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The External links section for this article has been spammed so heavily in the past, that I don't recommend having one. Oh well, we will just see what happens. Trasel (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Added:


To the External links section. Both links are well know for survival and Survivalism. Both are pretty good for the subject matter so please look thm over in detail before anyone says they are spam or anything else. billylenks (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)