Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I'm not sure. I definitely agree that it can be read the way you did, and now that I look carefully at the article, I agree that most of it really does make sense.

But despite this, there is some of discussion of armed compounds, marauding hordes, and the like, that you would probably not see in a similar article in Europe.  I suspect that those of us who have lived in the U.S. for a long time read articles like this differently, having encountered survivalists like this before. These guys always seem to be reasonable, in precisely this way, but there always seems to be an undercurrent of antisocial lunacy just under the surface.

One possibility, though, is that the movement is indeed rational, like you suggest, with only a few survivalist lunatics, but that the journalist has automatically written the article in a way that fits the standard narrative.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue May 27th, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't have to be either/or. Just because you're paranoid, etc.

Survivalism makes a kind of sense in the US because there's enough space to live relatively self-sufficiently far enough away from marauding traumatised survivors. And they still have remnants of that pioneer spirit - which was quite a thing, in its way. The genocide of the Indians wasn't pretty, but it takes a certain kind of person to survive a trek across a continent in a covered wagon.

Survivalism makes no sense at all in Europe because population densities make survival unlikely, even with a gun and a small holding. The best solutions - but currently the least likely ones - have to be political.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue May 27th, 2008 at 11:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series