Feel Like Getting Angry Today?

[Special K]

Another find from a prepper MeetUp forum board I'm on:

Read this... http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/Doomsday-Preppers-Emergency-Management-112912.html

Be sure to read the follow-up comments.

[ForgedPatriot]

Wow, just goes to show you that a CEM, CBCP, and an instructor in the CSU Long Beach Master's Degree program in Emergency Services Administration can have absolutely no clue what she is talking about...lol. I have been a CERT coordinator before, a CERT member, as well as a VOLUNTEER HAM radio operator for my local EOC in the past. That lady has no clue, and what she said in that article should have no bearing on anyones prepping plans.

Emergency Managers can't afford that kind of attitude

   

Really? The EOC coordinator where I was at was all for people preparing on their own. It made his job easier, so he did not have to listen to as many complainers that were not prepared.

You might wonder why someone like me, who has been in the business of encouraging disaster preparedness for a very long time, is so critical of people who are doing just that

   

Why yes....I am wondering that. What I am really wondering is how someone like you, that has probably never ventured outside the city limits has made it this far as a so called "person in the emergency management field for over 20 years"....unbelievable. There are plenty of opportunities out there for people to prepare themselves, and the majority choose not to. Thats their business. Calling people selfish for preparing their own families is the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time (and I was in the Military, so there was plenty of that!)

The only thing that that article enlightened me on was 1) Made me glad I never went and got a bunch of useless degrees, and 2) Made me realize that I can never get back the 20 minutes I spent on the article and this post about it!  LOL! 

[flippydidit]

The title of the article is "Doomsday Preppers are Socially Selfish", to which I (and one of the commenters) would refer the author to the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

To which she states, AND I QUOTE, "I read it in high school, it was published during my freshman year (yep, I'm really that old). I didn't agree with her version of morality then - that altruism was bad for human survival - and I still don't."

This is an Emergency Management Manager that states that altruism is good for human survival.  As proof I offer to you historical precedent (in no particular order):

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)   49-78,000,000

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)   12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)

Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)   8,000,000

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)   6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)

Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)   5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)

Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20)   1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000
Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)   1,700,000

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)   1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)   1,500,000

Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)   1,000,000

Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)   900,000

Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)   800,000

Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)   600,000

There are many more.  These are the products of the "greater good" (altruism) mythos.  It is a failure of humanity to allow these monstrosities to occur simply because an evil philosophy is chosen over morally good philosophy.

[cptd]

That's the very nature of the real problem with this plae rearing its head. Look for more and more of this stuff as time goes by, not less. Because for the time being, the socialists have traditional americans in sort of a check-mate situation in that they control all the major communications mediums. They have managed to get control of education, the media, and have controlled hollywood/entertainment for years.

And, conservative/traditionalist ideology is not even trying to contest them in any of these arenas. They've basically just written it all off, which is not a good sign for the future of this place. They can get away with saying and teaching pretty much anything they want to.

My wife came here from Latvia. She grew up under Soviet occoupation. She also lived through the aftermath of the Soviet's disintegration and her perspective on things has really shaped what I think is going to go down here in the States. This sort of talk is nothing new. It's the sort of thing Socialists do and say, and when they can get away with actually teaching this kind of thing to the public in large numbers, totally uncontested, the revolution has basically already happened.

[nelson96]

You might wonder why someone like me, who has been in the business of encouraging disaster preparedness for a very long time, is so critical of people who are doing just that. It’s because they are being socially selfish – preparing themselves and the hell with everyone else.  Instead of spending time and energy making changes that would benefit the larger community, in their very narrow focus of loyalty they are more concerned about themselves.

Emergency Managers can’t afford that kind of attitude.  It is diametrically opposed to everything we do. Our job is to prepare individuals and communities and jurisdictions and regions and – ultimately – the globe for disasters, knowing we won’t always succeed.  I could find statistics about how unprepared some citizens are, and then show you hundreds of active and volunteer CERT teams preparing whole communities. In major disasters (think 9-11 or the Christ Church earthquake or Superstorm Sandy), survivors for the most part WANT to help each other.

What a self absorbed idiot, and she's calling us selfish?. . . .  In fact, we do want to help others, our own survival largely depends on it (so we don't have to worry so much about the takers).  It is people like this that drive us to our holes and don't talk about it in fear of becoming outcasts.  If I had a government subsidy (like she does), I might have more time and money to help more than I do.

People like her create the problem they speak of.  They take only the subject matter they choose and twist it to benfit their own agenda.  This is exactly what they are doing to the christian population as well.  It's ironic that that they say they are trying to create community, when it is so obvious that they are trying to break it down . . . .  So we will rely on "them" instead of the community they "say" they are trying to build.

[FreeLancer]

I can see her point.  Yes, she's maybe a bit biased toward the socialist end of the preparedness spectrum, but you have to admit that there are many scary preppers at the other end who are most definitely selfish and antisocial.  I know I can't be the only person on this forum who's here precisely because we go out of our way to combat the very attitude she's talking about. 

While I don't agree with Jack on everything, I give him credit for encouraging us to think outside of our immediate families and like-minded preppers.  I also like Steve Harris' line about it being easier to feed your neighbors than to shoot them.  At some point, in whatever crisis we fantasize about, we will desperately need to integrate into whatever community is left and those of us holed up in the woods shooting, instead of feeding, will not be welcome.

Obviously there's a balance that must be negotiated between thinking only of yourself at the expense of others, but I don't think there are many who will be able survive without some give and take between those who prep and those who don't, and what goes around usually comes around.

[NorIDhunter]

  they are being socially selfish

One of the first things i learned in emergency response was that'
"Dead responders can't help victims/patients."
YOUR safety needs to come first. That's not "selfish", that's self-preservation.

Instead of spending time and energy making changes that would benefit the larger community

That sounds to me like someone who has had too much of "other people's money" to spend as an "Emergency Manager". "Larger community benefit" usually entails larger budgets. We, as preppers, for the most part can't just go to the city/county council and request more funding/apply for grants/issue bonds. 

There are those who think the Doomsday Preppers is an extreme model of self-preparedness; I just see them as an extreme model of selfishness.

And then there are those who see them, the DP's, as they really are; paid charcaters playing parts in a TV show.
Hey Val, reality check time. 

[flippydidit]

I can see her point.  Yes, she's maybe a bit biased toward the socialist end of the preparedness spectrum, but you have to admit that there are many scary preppers at the other end who are most definitely selfish and antisocial.  I know I can't be the only person on this forum who's here precisely because we go out of our way to combat the very attitude she's talking about. 

While I don't agree with Jack on everything, I give him credit for encouraging us to think outside of our immediate families and like-minded preppers.  I also like Steve Harris' line about it being easier to feed your neighbors than to shoot them.  At some point, in whatever crisis we fantasize about, we will desperately need to integrate into whatever community is left and those of us holed up in the woods shooting, instead of feeding, will not be welcome.

Obviously there's a balance that must be negotiated between thinking only of yourself at the expense of others, but I don't think there are many who will be able survive without some give and take between those who prep and those who don't, and what goes around usually comes around.

I don't have to admit that they are.  This is America.  They can choose to do whatever they want.  If they choose to do things that you interpret as selfish and anti-social, get over it.  It's none of our business what they do.  Now, I will grant you that some damage is done to the prepper image when they are flaunting their life choices on national television.  If they want to live in a cabin with 1,000 guns and 40 tons of stored food and water, it isn't selfish.  You can do the same thing if you want.  No one is stopping you or the 330 million other Americans that can make that choice.  So when they don't "share" (give away their property) to "help" (burn up resources their family was depending on to feed the grasshoppers) they get labeled.  It's always easier to define someone if you label them first.

The mentality that if someone just wants to be left alone and not interfered with by "the greater good" keeps getting twisted around into some kind of control freak "understanding", where if you want to be left alone you're "anti-social".  Not necessarily.  Maybe they just aren't social with YOU (not trying to bust on you in particular, just using you as an example).  They probably have their own circle of friends and family that doesn't include those that are absorbed in things they consider counter-productive.  I'm willing to bet there are groups in the U.S. today that you and I do not socially interact with.  From their point of view we must both be anti-social, right?

Or the other possibility is that you and I both make assessments and judgements based on our own value systems.  Our values determine what would possibly be considered "diminishing returns" on our time, energy or resources.  We may decide that it's more fruitful for us to "spread our message" to our local community than to the projects in the worst part of town.  Why?  Well, maybe we don't want to get mugged.  Then again, maybe starting with those nearest our home is more productive from a larger perspective.  The close neighbors will definitely have a more direct impact on our survival.  Unfortunately, that urbanite never heard the message because we were limited by the laws of physics.  We only had time to reach those people next door and never made it out to them.  I guess we're selfish and anti-social.  Well guess what.  So are they.  They never came out to our place and shared their resources with us.

I'm ok with that.  It doesn't bother me if they want to be "selfish" and "anti-social".  For future reference, as an Objectivist, I personally take being called selfish a compliment of the highest order.

[nelson96]

Once again Nate, you put it in to words what I can never muster up myself, thank you.  To reinforce what you said, I guess I could be labeled a "killer" since I own many guns and LOVE to shoot animals.  And I guess I'm antisocial and selfish too, since I won't tell you where I like to hunt.

[flippydidit]

In all fairness, I'm not going to tell you where I fish or buy ammo.

[nelson96]

In all fairness, I'm not going to tell you where I fish or buy ammo.

You're so selfish!  I'm going to write a blog about you and tell all my marxist friends.

[flippydidit]

I bet it'll be a short blog.  What with the HUGE population of marxist friends you cater to.

You're so selfish!

Thank you very much for your kind words.  I do try very hard to be a selfish person.  I think you're equally selfish.  Actually....I'd say you are perhaps MORE selfish, and I aspire to be more like you, Sir.

[Special K]

In all fairness, I'm not going to tell you where I fish or buy ammo.

Flippydidit, I...I see an image...an image of you...you fish very near the edge of a body of water and you buy ammo from a store that sells it...

There, that was easy! 

And to think...28 Days ago I couldn't spell "mind reader"...now I are one! 

[FreeLancer]

It doesn't bother me if they want to be "selfish" and "anti-social".  For future reference, as an Objectivist, I personally take being called selfish a compliment of the highest order.

The loner who prefers to be by himself is not antisocial, he would be better classified as asocial and I certainly don't have a problem with that (especially since that pretty much describes myself). 

Those who are antisocial are the people who will steal your stuff, stab you in the back, and rape your family just for the hell of it.  This type of predatory behavior takes selfishness to a level that even Ayn Rand couldn't condone.

[flippydidit]

There again I'm encountering the difference in terminology.  What Ayn Rand defines "selfish" to mean (the definition before it was changed in our "modern dictionaries"), and what most people think the definition of "selfish" to be are two different animals completely.

[NorIDhunter]

Those who are antisocial are the people who will steal your stuff, stab you in the back, and rape your family just for the hell of it. 

Again, that depends on your definition of anti-social.
How many prepper "flashmobs" do we hear about? Rioting & looting?

M-W defines antisocial as 1: averse to the society of others
2 : hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm

I would contend that what you describe is "the society of others" in large part these days. To be averse to "that" would then be virtuous.
Also that "society" encourages one to live beyond one's means, that there are no consequences to one's actions  and to expect bailouts from others when you fail because it's not your fault, you're just a victim of "fill in the blank".

Survivalists generally don't sit around in a park demanding something for nothing, they're far more apt to be out there working to make something out of nothing.
If that's " social selfishness", count me in.

Here, on this mountain, I and my sons and my chosen friends shall build our new land and our fort. And it will become as the heart of the earth, lost and hidden at first, but beating, beating louder each day. And word of it will reach every corner of the earth. Anthem - 1937
   

[ForgedPatriot]

flippydidit

This is America.  They can choose to do whatever they want.  If they choose to do things that you interpret as selfish and anti-social, get over it.  It's none of our business what they do.  Now, I will grant you that some damage is done to the prepper image when they are flaunting their life choices on national television.  If they want to live in a cabin with 1,000 guns and 40 tons of stored food and water, it isn't selfish.  You can do the same thing if you want.  No one is stopping you or the 330 million other Americans that can make that choice.  So when they don't "share" (give away their property) to "help" (burn up resources their family was depending on to feed the grasshoppers) they get labeled.

No sense in reinventing the wheel.....I can't come close to improving on that response. Well said!

[trav]

She is a typical government employee . They know what's best for you, just leave it all to them. I have spent the last 19 years in emergency response (fire, ems, and hazmat). I don't have any confidence in the government.

[Connecticut Prepper]

This Valerie Lucus-McEwen person seems to think we are selfish for taking care of ourselves, but I wonder, when the lights go out and the shelves run empty and a bottle of water is worth more than an ounce of gold and someone in need came to her door for an extra mouth full of food, how fast would she open the door to help or would she be "Selfish" with her resources and ignore the call for help?  I'm not sure about you guys but I'm betting on the latter

[nelson96]

This Valerie Lucus-McEwen person seems to think we are selfish for taking care of ourselves, but I wonder, when the lights go out and the shelves run empty and a bottle of water is worth more than an ounce of gold and someone in need came to her door for an extra mouth full of food, how fast would she open the door to help or would she be "Selfish" with her resources and ignore the call for help?  I'm not sure about you guys but I'm betting on the latter

You know it.  She might even own a rfle to put in your face.

[Connecticut Prepper]

I'm sure it's a rifle she doesn't want us to own but ok for her to own

[The Professor]

Sorry, Nelson & Connecticut. . .but you're both wrong:

She'd ask you how the hell you got around her police protection, tell you to go fill out the necessary forms for the food and have you escorted off at gunpoint by the nice policeman who were assigned to protecting her.

Bureaucrats. . .you gotta think like BUREAUCRATS!

The Professor

[Nicodemus]

For the last day and a half or so I've been link hopping around the net in my spare time, following the giant S-Storm that this article brought down throughout the preparedness community. It has been pretty amusing to say the least.

The basic premise to me, which is starting to show more and more at this point and which I don't think the author considered when she first penned the article, is that at its base there is the thought that people spending their own money and time on themselves is somehow socially selfish and unacceptable.

This begs the question of how the author spends her own money and time and if it is all geared to benefit society.

The author's constant need to post "What I really meant" and "You misunderstood" comments and in a follow up article are hilarious.

[Herbalpagan]

obviously, she doesn't really know many "preppers". I don't know very many preppers who wouldn't share knowledge to help people. I've known many who have taken newbies litterally by the hand and take them shopping, help them pack buckets and go over and over things with them. I know many preppers who have spent a great deal of time, thought and money preparing small packets of food, supplies and info to give out to those that might be out wandering during a shtf scenario (though I do not).  Many, MANY preppers put themselves on the line to blog, share, talk on crappy blogtalk radio weekly, give classes and help people learn.

I notcie that after all the response from the article came in, she withdrew it and though she says she stands by what she says, my guess is that she won't be writing many more articles.

[Shaunypoo]

The author's constant need to post "What I rally meant" and "You misunderstood" comments and in a follow up article are hilarious.

You think that is hilarious, you should read her follow-up article:
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/Doomsday_Disaster_Preppers_Emergency_Management-120212.html

She tries to make a distinction.  Doesn't do a very good job, either.  Then gets tore up in the comments again.  She also admits she doesn't have even a 72 hour kit because she will be too busy helping others.

[solarguy]

I had a pretty interesting email exchange with Valerie, who started the whole sh!t-storm with her dufus post about how selfish we are.

After several back and forth emails, she agreed that she just got wrong.  Drastically wrong.

At the end, she agreed to post my constructive criticism of her first post, and to publicize the normal/good preppers.  Us for example.

The result is her latest blog post.  Check it out:

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/doomsday-preppers-emergency-management-120612.html



Is she 100% up to speed with us now?  Maybe not.  Is she 800% in a better place than she was when she made the first blog post?  Absolutely, she is.


If you think she has done the right thing, go give her a little positive reinforcement on her blog so she knows she had done some righteous repair work.

Yes, even the government people can change.

finest regards,

troy, aka The Libertarian

[nelson96]

I had a pretty interesting email exchange with Valerie, who started the whole sh!t-storm with her dufus post about how selfish we are.

After several back and forth emails, she agreed that she just got wrong.  Drastically wrong.

At the end, she agreed to post my constructive criticism of her first post, and to publicize the normal/good preppers.  Us for example.

The result is her latest blog post.  Check it out:

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/doomsday-preppers-emergency-management-120612.html



Is she 100% up to speed with us now?  Maybe not.  Is she 800% in a better place than she was when she made the first blog post?  Absolutely, she is.


If you think she has done the right thing, go give her a little positive reinforcement on her blog so she knows she had done some righteous repair work.

Yes, even the government people can change.

finest regards,

troy, aka The Libertarian

Very well done.  I liked the post you put on her blog.

[Shaunypoo]

+1 for your great post on the other site.

This is her actual apology:
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/doomsday-preppers-emergency-management-120412.html

Has she had her paradigm shifted?  Probably.  I think she realizes the continuum of preppers is varied enough, but we are still a community.  And you said it right, #5 is less selfish than #1 or even #2.  But  I still think she has a degree of hostility towards #5.  I don't hold any hostility toward #1 or #2, but I have a degree of disdain.  And I don't think #5 is helping our cause, but they won't be in the way when the time comes, and that is invaluable.  And she doesn't value that.

I am glad a lot of intelligent readers such as yourself were instrumental in assisting her to change her worldview.  You may not like the term "prepper", but you represent us well.

[Nicodemus]

That was a good email, solarguy.

[nelson96]

This is her actual apology:
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/campus/doomsday-preppers-emergency-management-120412.html

After reading this, I believe she still doesn't get it.