From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need

Students are asked about redistributing grade point averages (GPA), from the upper 10% to those who may not graduate unless their GPAs are raised. A typical response, “that’s not fair, I worked hard for that.” Same students asked if they favor redistributing wealth, looks like all in the video did. Many tried to deflect this obvious hypocrisy by saying the analogy isn’t good, that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. But is it?

One argument, for example, was that grades are a more accurate measure of performance than income. I say; maybe, maybe not, and so what? Income is a combination of performance and life choices. Natural ability and luck are certainly factors, but probably less so than 1) not making stupid choices and 2) working hard. That’s just the way it is.

The Atlantic picked up on this and offered some of the reasons/excuses some argued, as examples and not the position of the author. I think they all fall flat and agree with the conclusion:

They suggest that most of us just want to redistribute income because, well, we wanna . . . not because we have any particularly good reason.

Class warfare is what we’re up against when it comes to creating a sane federal budget, and the sort of hypocritical and illogical approach by the students in the video above is one reason why I have little hope there will be a solution in time to prevent a collapse.

Military Service, Survivalism, and Mobilization

I can’t guess the percentage, but many survivalists have served in the military or currently are serving. Probably much higher than the veteran to non-veteran ratio. A few survival bloggers – including Ryan, Nutnfancy, and myself – are currently serving on active duty (them) or in the reserves (me). Many survivalist bloggers may not advertise their current status due to OPSEC concerns.

There are some excellent benefits to military service, and I don’t mean healthcare, education, or a steady income. Training (formal and OJT), types of professions, leadership development, and living overseas are a few. There is also the chance to pursue careers that are extremely difficult to get into otherwise, from combat arms or Special Forces, to intelligence, to technical disciplines. The military can change your life for the better, if you let it.

With such service in this era, however, there is also price to pay – you will deploy, perhaps multiple times, depending on which branch of service and job. Most of the time that’s what you want – you’ve trained for it, now it’s time to put it into action. Before OIF/OEF, service members had gone entire careers without much opportunity for mobilization.

Enter survivalism, and an awakening to the issues and potential TEOTWAWKI events lurking around the corner. Mobilization goes from being merely bittersweet – away from wife and kids, but doing fulfilling work – to something to dread; what will my wife and children do if TSHTF while I’m in Afghanistan for a year?

In my estimation we’re currently in a slow decline, which likely will trigger a total collapse at some unknown future time. Odds are my time to pay the piper will come sooner than later and I’ll be back in time, but one never knows. If you’re a survivalist considering the military or staying in the military, this is something you’ll need to weigh.

Book Review – On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

Very rarely do I read a book that alters my understanding of human nature – On Killing is one of those books. The author of On Killing is LTC Dave Grossman (ret.), who is a psychologist and was an Army Ranger. While he has not killed, his professional and military training gave him insight and access into the questions of what it takes to learn to kill, and what it takes from us.

For anyone concerned about the potential collapse of our civilization, this is critical reading. Whether TEOTWAWKI occurs or not, you may one day face someone trying to kill you, your family, or others – how would you react? On Killing might help you think through that dilemma.

The main point of the book is that, contrary to popular perception, up until the Korean War (for American service members), most of those in combat – 80% or more, normally – did not ever fire their weapons in battle, even to protect themselves, due to what the Grossman show is an innate resistance to killing. Many of those firing likely were purposely not hitting their human targets. This phenomenon has been noted as far back as Alexander the Great and is cross-cultural. Much data is from the U.S. Civil War. Militaries have in the past, and more scientifically in recent decades, very successfully instituted training measures to remove this resistance to killing.

For those that do kill, Grossmans discusses the psychiatric casualties and how society helps (WWII) or hinders (Vietnam) killers in coming to terms morally with the stress of having overcome the instinctive (for almost all) revulsion to killing.

After WWII the U.S. military instituted changes to infantry training that increased desensitization and thus the shoot rate of solider to 50 % by the Korean War, and to 95% by Vietnam – something unprecedented in modern history. Something as simple as using silhouette and/or fall-down type targets rather than circular targets assisted in this by creating a more realistic situation:

In behavioral terms, the man shape popping up in the soldier’s field of fire is the ‘conditioned stimulus’, the immediate engaging of the target is the ‘target behavior’. ‘Positive reinforcement’ is given in the form of immediate feedback when the target drops if it is hit… these hits are then exchanged for marksmanship badges which have some form of privilege or reward association with them (praise, public recognition, three-day passes).

Also detailed were the different physical distances to a kill and how that factored in. These include maxim range (missile station, air crew, etc.), long range (sniper), mid-range (small arms, etc.), hang grenade range, close range, edged weapons range, hand-to-hand range, and finally, sexual range. As one might assume, physical distance reduces moral strain and vice versa.

Of note concerning killing with edged weapons is that most deaths from such throughout history were from cuts rather than penetrating thrusts, and almost no one is ever killed by bayonet. Humans seem to have a real aversion to killing by penetrating the body with an edged weapon, which explains why I cannot watch the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the German solider kills and American soldier by driving a knife slowly into his chest.

For most, killing over time is emotionally and even physically draining. However for a very small subset of the population, about 2% Grossman estimates, this is not true – they are natural born killers who do not suffer emotional fatigue over time. Grossman hypotheses that these individuals are a combination of those with superior coping abilities, and sociopaths. These soldiers tend to gravitate naturally to special forces type positions and are found in higher percentages there.

On Killing was published in 1995 so there are hundred of more detailed reviews available, and the book should be in many libraries. It is highly recommended as a sort of mental preparation for an innate trait many survivalists and preppers may not think about normally.

How Will You Live Post-TEOTWAWKI?

This post details why I believe a balanced approach to developing survival skills and assets is absolutely critical.

Probably most survivalists actively prepping have an idealized notion of how they will fare in a post-TEOTWAWKI environment. Primarily that their efforts will allow for relative safety and comfort for the prepper and companions, and maybe even giving to charity.

The flip side of that is not starving to death or dying from exposure, and not being murdered and/or raped, and so on. I prefer to look at it from the flip side because it keeps me focused. I dwell on it. Some might argue the possibility of a major societal collapse is too remote to worry about, but IMO it’s a low probability, high risk issue worth planning for.

Unfortunately the ideal of surviving comfortably will be shattered for a lot of folks if they focus too heavily on one area at the neglect of another. Looking at the survival spectrum, the zone to aim for is the center. In a sense the center of the survivals spectrum, like the political spectrum is a place of compromise, since a definite balance is there that for most requires a conscious effort to achieve.

Why do I say the center is so critical? If you focus on sustainability, or the left in this spectrum, you will not be prepared to defend yourself or others – you will be, relatively, defenseless. I see a lot of blogs focusing on ensuring food production and related skills are well developed, but no mention of defense or security issues. It’s possible some of those bloggers are squared away concerning security and don’t mention it, but it’s not very likely.

On the other hand, some focus almost exclusively on obtaining a an array of firearms and stockpiling ammunition, the right side of the spectrum, devoting vast amounts of time to studying military tactics, etc. Perhaps these survivalists believe they will be able to easily hunt or plant crops. But it is in fact more difficult than just putting some seeds in the ground, and my guess is that after TSHTF wild game will become very scarce in areas with even a modest population. And you can’t eat bullets. An example of under prepared preppers is the, “Brass Horde” – a very good read.

One potential, and perhaps likely, outcome is that those focusing on sustainability to the neglect of security have set themselves up to become prey (to both prepared survivalist and the “Golden Horde” of starving people), while those with weapons but not food production skills have steered themselves into the role of predator. It doesn’t have to be that way, however, since those with the firepower and knowledge to use it could arrange to become security for those with the food production skill set. Obviously that leaves puts those with firepower in the dominant position.

Of course some plan to be predators from the beginning and they are perhaps the most dangerous. For example, a reader of Survival Blog sent in his essay, which was basically on how he plans to loot his local area. James Rawles, editor of Survival Blog, apparently posted the letter to his site as an example of what we will face post-TEOTWAWKI.

Speaking of societal collapse, a co-worker once told me he has a weapon and ammunition, and so doesn’t need to do anything beyond that; his plan is to take what he needs if there is a collapse. I now make it a point to never discuss details of prepping with those I don’t trust deeply. On one hand it’s good to try to introduce the subject to some so that they may realize the potential for trouble and begin to prepare, but on the other it’s dangerous to give away that you may have food and weapons stockpiled. I recommend erring on the side of caution.

No preppers want to become prey and probably the vast majority don’t want to be forced to become predators. The answer is to balance your preparations and become a centrist survivalist.

Locus of Control and Survivalism

If you ever took a psychology course you’re probably familiar with the concept of “Locus of Control,” which refers to how individual’s perceive the underlying causes of events in their life; Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by yourself or by external forces?

In very basic terms, the two sides of this coin are internal (life guided by personal decisions and efforts – no fate but what we make) and external (life guided by fate, luck, other external circumstances). Having learned the term in my youth, it was often interesting to apply the concept as I observed the behavior of others and made my own decisions. Awareness of the concept probably drove me a bit, since I considered (still do) those with an external locus of control to be akin to sheeple.

Survivalists and preppers might assume they have an internal locus of control – and they’d be correct. Someone with an external locus of control might believe they were not vulnerable, that the government would take care of them, etc. Survivalists would believe the exact opposite, or at least consider anything possible and know help is not guaranteed. There are online tests available to find where you stand, at least according to a free 13 question test.

But there needs to be some balance in what one believes they can affect in their life. Goals must be both a) actually achievable and b) something you personally can accomplish. The key is to know yourself and set realistic goals;

Overly internal people who lack competence, efficacy and opportunity can become neurotic, anxious and depressed. In other words, internals need to have a realistic sense of their circle of influence in order to experience ‘success’.

For survivalists and preppers, I think this message is an important one. Know the unexpected can happen, know personal limits, and operate within those limits to achieve as much as possible. This applies to physical, financial, mental, etc. limitations or boundaries.

Update: Along the lines of concepts survivalists should know, Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest has a post on “single point of failure.”