Gyroscopic Investing

I'm about half-way through it.  It's 1000X better than his first novel, story-wise.  Either he matured as a novelist or he got some serious help.  Gone are the sheet-rock-thin characters (cannibalistic communist child molesters?) and piss-poor dialects.  

Definitely worth picking up a copy.

Maybe he's just getting better with practice.

It's possible. 

I think there was a 10-15 year gap in-between the two novels. 

Hard to believe I started following his blog in 2003 (or 2004?) ... and I'm still waiting for the end of the world.

Coffee wrote: It's possible. 

I think there was a 10-15 year gap in-between the two novels. 

Hard to believe I started following his blog in 2003 (or 2004?) ... and I'm still waiting for the end of the world.

Most survivalism is a parlor game for bored men (and occasionally the women who love them).

It can still be great fun, though. 

The trick is to understand that a lot of survivalists are only happy if they feel like there is a credible TEOTWAWKI threat at all times that demands serious and immediate attention.  Whether any such imminent threat actually exists is mostly beside the point.

That's an interesting take on it.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts, as I respect your opinions and it's helpful to hear a counter-balance of ideas. 

How would you explain the mainstreaming of the survivalism niche?  Rawles's book is #17 on the bestseller list and Costco and Walmart are now stocking survival food as regular items... which would suggest it's gone way beyond the domain of bored old men, wouldn't it?

My opinion is that: Yes, there are probably 5-10% of the niche who are praying for TEOTWAWKI because they think it will improve their otherwise miserable and worthless lot in life. (I.E., The guys living in 2k mobile homes in the middle of nowhere).  But the other 90% of us are just plain 'ol freaked out.  Probably partly as a result of gloom-and-doom media spin ala Drudge and Co.

Coffee wrote: How would you explain the mainstreaming of the survivalism niche?  Rawles's book is #17 on the bestseller list and Costco and Walmart are now stocking survival food as regular items... which would suggest it's gone way beyond the domain of bored old men, wouldn't it?

My opinion is that: Yes, there are probably 5-10% of the niche who are praying for TEOTWAWKI because they think it will improve their otherwise miserable and worthless lot in life. (I.E., The guys living in 2k mobile homes in the middle of nowhere).  But the other 90% of us are just plain 'ol freaked out.  Probably partly as a result of gloom-and-doom media spin ala Drudge and Co.

I am using the word bored very broadly, and it also includes men who are frustrated, alienated and just fed up with the status quo.

Modern survivalism is, to me, an attempt at self-empowerment in a world that makes one feel more and more powerless.  The fact that the threats most survivalists focus on are NOT the actual risks they are likely to encounter in the real world is what makes it a parlor game, though as I said there is nothing wrong with a good parlor game.

The risks most people face in the real world are loss of employment, health problems they can't afford to have treated, lifestyles that lead to health problems in the first place, loss of marital harmony (or the inability to find it in the first place), and a failure to find a durable sense of wholeness and meaning in life.  I don't know how useful an AR-15, MREs, and a 4 wheel drive are in mitigating these risks.

I referred to bored men, not bored old men, and I also wouldn't limit it to poor men at all.  The most hardcore survivalists I know are very affluent.  In fact, it's hard to be a really good survivalist if you don't have a good bit of extra money because there is SO much gear you need to buy to have a proper setup.

This is obviously just my take on things, but I am speaking from personal experience to some extent.

You make a valid point, as usual. 

Of course, a lot depends on how we define "modern survivalism"?  Are we talking about "concrete bomb shelter in the backwoods of Montana" ... or suburban prepper Mom with an extra-large pantry for the MRE's she bought at Costco?

All you have to do is read the cesspool of comment threads at Zerohedge to see what MT is talking about.  I find most of the regular posters to be survivalist conspiracy theory wackos that are convinced precious metals are the only sound investment and that some woman named Blythe is single handedly responsible for manipulating the global silver market.  That riots and widespread looting or a zombie apocalypse will soon engulf the US.  I think there is a lot of truth in the theory that this gives disaffected people a chance to feel like they have some control in their lives.

Coffee wrote: You make a valid point, as usual. 

Of course, a lot depends on how we define "modern survivalism"?  Are we talking about "concrete bomb shelter in the backwoods of Montana" ... or suburban prepper Mom with an extra-large pantry for the MRE's she bought at Costco?

If you read Rawles blog, over time a very distinct narrative emerges.  This narrative of eventual social collapse and the adventure story kind of experiences that will follow for those who are prepared is, IMHO, a bit farfetched.  With that said, I find the narrative immensely entertaining. 

My first interest in Rawles' line of thinking was probably when I was about 15 years old when I enjoyed reading "American Survival Guide" magazine and lamenting that I couldn't even afford a basic AR-7, since it was obvious in 1985 that nuclear war was imminent and some kind of zombie shredder firearm was going to be a necessity very soon.  (I understand that an AR-7 would have made a very poor zombie gun, but I was convinced that outstanding marksmanship on my part could make up for the shortcoming of the .22LR round.)

I went on a couple of survival camps when I was younger and they were amazing experiences that I will never forget.  There is much to be learned about oneself by going through an experience of deprivation, even if the deprivation is self-induced.

Being prepared for whatever life may throw at you is a great way of engaging your mind and creating a feeling of security.  Over time, though, I have come to see that many of the real threats in life are far more subtle (and challenging) than dealing with zombie hordes.

Storm, Blythe Masters does sound like someone with a creative genius when it comes to screwing the world up .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters

"She is widely credited with creating the modern credit default swap, a form of insurance that protects a lender if a borrower of capital defaults on a loan.
In 2006 she was named J.P. Morgan's head of Global Commodities."

stone wrote: Storm, Blythe Masters does sound like someone with a creative genius when it comes to screwing the world up .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters

"She is widely credited with creating the modern credit default swap, a form of insurance that protects a lender if a borrower of capital defaults on a loan.
In 2006 she was named J.P. Morgan's head of Global Commodities."

It sounds like she might be one of those "wicked city women."



It wouldn't surprise me at all if she was trying to "vamp" the world financial system. 

Great gif !!

What's a "survival camp"?  I'm picturing:

Coffee wrote:
What's a "survival camp"?  I'm picturing:

Basically, Boy Scout outings with minimal gear.

Nice "Meatballs" reference.  I always believed that such camps existed after seeing that movie, though I don't know if they ever actually did.

Speaking of post-apocalypse fiction, the next book in my reading stack is "Earth Abides" by George Stewart.

Has anyone read that one?  It was apparently one of the first in the genre.

Haven't read that one. Haven't even heard of it. 

Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank is largely considered one of the first in the genre.  Have you read that one?

MediumTex wrote:

Coffee wrote: You make a valid point, as usual.  

Of course, a lot depends on how we define "modern survivalism"?  Are we talking about "concrete bomb shelter in the backwoods of Montana" ... or suburban prepper Mom with an extra-large pantry for the MRE's she bought at Costco?

If you read Rawles blog, over time a very distinct narrative emerges.  This narrative of eventual social collapse and the adventure story kind of experiences that will follow for those who are prepared is, IMHO, a bit farfetched.  

Why is that?

I look at Katrina (although it was localized), the Zetas in the Mexican border town (or Mexico in general!), the Revolution in Egypt, The Great Depression, The Weimar Republic, the Nazi regime, Argentina, etc... all as evidence that things can (and have) gone haywire.  

So... is your argument that it can't happen, here? Why?

Also-- I'm not sure where you're getting the adventure story narrative from his blog? I find it mostly nuts and bolts of prepping.  (His novels, yes, are obviously adventure stories... but it's hard to write a survival novel without an adventure plot, I'd guess?)

Coffee wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Coffee wrote: You make a valid point, as usual.  

Of course, a lot depends on how we define "modern survivalism"?  Are we talking about "concrete bomb shelter in the backwoods of Montana" ... or suburban prepper Mom with an extra-large pantry for the MRE's she bought at Costco?

If you read Rawles blog, over time a very distinct narrative emerges.  This narrative of eventual social collapse and the adventure story kind of experiences that will follow for those who are prepared is, IMHO, a bit farfetched.  

Why is that?

I look at Katrina (although it was localized), the Zetas in the Mexican border town (or Mexico in general!), the Revolution in Egypt, The Great Depression, The Weimar Republic, the Nazi regime, Argentina, etc... all as evidence that things can (and have) gone haywire.  

So... is your argument that it can't happen, here? Why?

It can and will happen here, as it eventually happens everywhere.  The question I have is whether the traditional survivalist narrative is of much use when these things actually happen.  In the 1930s for example, people moved from the country to the cities.  A person "bugging out" to the country would have had a hard time out there where there was even less economic activity and opportunity than there was in the cities.

One of the basic tenets of survivalism seems to be to build a secure cocoon to "ride out" the bad times.  In the 1930s, however, that cocoon would have needed to last a full 10 years or more.  If one only has provisions for 90 days, what happens on day 91?

I suppose I am just making the point that from my perspective much of modern survivalism is simply playing out future scenarios in one's mind for the purpose of feeling more secure about those scenarios, whether or not those scenarios have much likelihood of ever happening.  It's mostly harmless, I suppose, but I think that people probably do sometimes wind up spending grocery money on ballistic vests and night vision goggles that are never likely to see much use.

One thing I do notice when I look at historical TEOTWAWKI situations is that for the observant person there was normally plenty of lead time before the event to relocate to somewhere safer.  I do not mean this in a "bugging out" sense, but more as a permanent emigration from one area to another to create a new life in a safer environment.  Unfortunately, being able to do this in a timely manner often requires a lot of financial resources, which if you don't have severely restricts your options.

Also-- I'm not sure where you're getting the adventure story narrative from his blog? I find it mostly nuts and bolts of prepping.  (His novels, yes, are obviously adventure stories... but it's hard to write a survival novel without an adventure plot, I'd guess?)

Here is an example from a post I just randomly selected entitled "Another Perspective on Dairy Goats":

My foray into the world of self-sufficiency began with two animals and a dream: two Nubian dairy goats, to be exact, and a whole load of criticism and laughter from those who thought I was crazy! “What do you know about raising goats?”? , and “Why bother, isn’t it easier to just go buy milk at the store”? Smirk, smirk. Little did they realize, this made me ever more determined to have the last laugh.

My husband was grudgingly tolerant, and my children were excited and blindly trusting their mother to know exactly what she was doing. After all my thorough research I jumped in feet first….and fell. And fell and fell again. But, after some blood, sweat, and tears I believe I have learned a lot and would like to share what wisdom I have gained with those who might be considering the dairy goat as a fresh milk source for their family.

The narrative that is embedded in this introduction to an article about dairy goats is that there may come a time when these dairy goats are needed for survival, and those with the foresight to improve their dairy goat chops today will be rewarded when TEOTWAWKI occurs.

There is certainly nothing wrong with raising dairy goats as a hobby and enjoying goat milk if you are into that sort of thing, but for me there is an overall contextual framework that goes something like this:

The world as you know it may come to a jarring end soon.  When that happens access to food will be severely restricted and many are likely to starve.  When this happens, only those with the foresight to stockpile supplies and skills will survive.  While my front yard may look like it is populated by dairy goats, these creatures are actually my ticket through very hard times that I believe are coming.  I pity those who are not as smart as me and who don't see how clever a move my dairy goat herd really is.  Although my family was skeptical at first, I believe they now see just how cunning I really am.

I feel this way about lots of posts on his blog, even though I enjoy reading them.  They are clearly of a primarily informative nature, but the premises on which their relevance is based, to me, consistently touch on the basic survivalist narrative of broad social deterioration or collapse, followed by the use of stockpiled gear and supplies for a select few to ride out the bad times.

If you ask me what alternative there is to this way of looking at things, I might say that investing more effort in developing currently marketable skills is one thing a person could do (e.g., rather than learning about properly applying face paint to avoid detection from a sniper's perch, one might learn how to drive a forklift and get a part time job driving one).  Another thing I might tell one of Rawles' followers is to not be so certain that the future will be filled with bad things that only survivalists will be able to successfully endure.  I might tell them about Harry Browne and his idea that the future is unpredictable, and how the person who crawled in his fallout shelter in 1984 because he was sure the end was near would have missed out on a lot of fun in the years that followed.  

Most of all, I might tell them to resist the impulse to live in fear.  Living in fear is not a fun way to spend your relatively short time on this earth.  Part of the survivalist narrative (as I understand it) is a strong and ever-present sense of foreboding about the future (along with a strong urge to buy as much gear as possible).  I do not think that this frame of mind is conducive to an overall satisfying life experience.  

I'm also mindful, though, that everyone is living in a world of mental constructs that they often swear are objective realities, and what I am saying might be utterly meaningless to some people.  In "Paradise Lost" Milton summed up the danger of this process of creating our own customized inner worlds:

The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven...

Okay-- I see where you're coming from, now.  

I agree that Rawles's flavor of survivalism does lean more toward the homesteader's lifestyle.    My personal opinion on that is: You'd probably be better off just stockpiling 5 years worth of food, and be done with it.  And then spending your time acquiring marketable skills-- like you've suggested. *(I like that, by the way... forklift driver!).

The problem is: How do you know if the city you live in only needs 10 forklift drivers... and you're #11?  

I've spent years researching the best recession-proof/depression-proof businesses.  There really aren't any, although a good bet might be to own a local fried chicken joint.  Everybody loves fried chicken.  Our local "Super-Taqueria" seems to do quite well, too.  LOL.

To Rawles's credit: He does point out (in his latest novel) that all of the survivalist preppers who think that they're going to live off their preps are fooling themselves if they don't think that-- in a real-life, long emergency-- the State (or some other large entity you can't defend against) won't come along and take from you, what you've squirreled away.

The larger survivalist (or prepper) community as a whole does have a divergence of thought between those who say "Move To Your Hidey-Hole In The Hills" and those who advocate just the opposite (FerFal, for example, who writes about his experiences living through the currency collapse in Argentina).  His experiences (and my wife's family's experiences-- who lived through the Escobar years in Colombia) suggested that it was much safer (for them) to be in the city than in the country, where the bandits and narco-terrorists roamed free.

My own opinion is that: It depends on the type of crisis you think we're headed for.  For me, the best strategy is to live in a smallish city (not a town, but a city) that is surrounded by at least some natural resources... most importantly-- water!  I don't want to be stuck in the boonies, but at the same time: I don't want to be in a city that's so large that it's law enforcement resources can't keep the gangs and criminal elements from burning down the infrastructure.  That's why I live in a city of 200,000 people where the local culture is (mostly) one of normalcy.  I.E., Not a lot of people running around with tattoos on their face.  (Although I probably could have chosen a city with a more diversified local economy, in retrospect... but I like the low tax environment, here).

I should add: I get a lot of enjoyment from collecting the gear and skills associated with preparedness.  And... I sleep a lot better at night, too, because of it.

But I sleep on a mattress at night.  I'm no "Craig Rawling". 

Coffee wrote: I should add: I get a lot of enjoyment from collecting the gear and skills associated with preparedness.  And... I sleep a lot better at night, too, because of it.

I do too.

I just try not to get too caught up in it.

I don't think that my wife will ever be interested in reloading casings, cleaning fish or milking goats.

I thought it was interesting in "The Road" how the man's wife basically responded to TEOTWAWKI by promptly giving up and dying.  The world she saw was simply not a place she was interested in living.  There would be a lot of people like this, I think.

See, that's where I think we need to clearly define terms like TEOTWAWKI, Survivalism, etc... 
I don't have time for people preparing for Hollywood's version of End Times: Mad Max, The Road, etc...

... which, I think, has always been the problem with the Preparedness Movement (TM) ... It attracts everybody from the weekend Mormon prepper to the crazy guy in the desert with his leaky mobile home, his scriptures and his 29 cats.

By the way: This guy... is not me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2B0suMMZ5U

MediumTex wrote: Most of all, I might tell them to resist the impulse to live in fear.  Living in fear is not a fun way to spend your relatively short time on this earth.  Part of the survivalist narrative (as I understand it) is a strong and ever-present sense of foreboding about the future (along with a strong urge to buy as much gear as possible).  I do not think that this frame of mind is conducive to an overall satisfying life experience.  

I'm also mindful, though, that everyone is living in a world of mental constructs that they often swear are objective realities, and what I am saying might be utterly meaningless to some people.  In "Paradise Lost" Milton summed up the danger of this process of creating our own customized inner worlds:

The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven...

Just a great post.

The body's stress and "fight or flight" responses were fantastic for keeping our ancestors out of the jaws of dire wolves and saber-toothed cats.  They sharpen the mind, give you that addictive tingle of excitement and focus you on nothing but the threat in front of you (or behind you!)

The trouble is that they are ultimately just a reallocation of the body's finite resources.  In true "fight or flight", functions like digestion shut down almost completely.  Chronic, long-term but less immediate stress weakens the immune system, screws with blood pressure, the heart and sleep patterns, and just generally leads to a whole host of physical maladies.  (Not to mention making life less fun.)

Preparedness in all things is a smart way to live.  But the more "clear and present danger" for most people (IMO) is unnecessary stress and worry.  I imagine that nobody's ever 100% successful at banishing worry from their lives.  But spending a lot of time assuming that the future will be simply awful makes this task far more difficult (if not impossible.)

I am now about 1/3 of the way through "Earth Abides" and I want to say that this is a really fantastic book.

Where "The Road" focused on the bleakness of a post-apocalypse world and the fight against hopelessness that each individual feels as civilization slowly edges from view, in "Earth Abides" the focus is more on the vastness of a world suddenly stripped of 99% of the people.  The book focuses on the role of culture in providing people with a daily narrative that cumulatively leads to a sense of meaning in life, and how when those daily routines and habitual interactions with people are suddenly removed it creates a jolting sense of mental, social, psychological and spiritual incoherence.  It's not just loneliness or alienation, but some broader and more subtle sense of I'm not supposed to be here anymore.

It's very well written.  In looking at some of the Amazon reviews, one recurring theme is people who are lifelong readers cite this book as one of the few that left impressions on their minds so vivid that years or decades later they would recall a scene from the book as if they had experienced it themselves very recently.

I love good post-apocalypse stories, but as Coffee noted in the OP in reference to Rawles' first book, too often the work in this genre is simply not well-written and the characters and plots are not well designed.  Thus far, "Earth Abides" has been a very happy surprise.

Did anyone see the movie, "The Road?"  Is it decent?  I'm a fan of Viggo Mortenson, and thought it looked interesting, but very depressing.