Thursday, May 21, 2015

How do farmers truly survive when SHTF?

Dear reader,
If you are reading this then you probably have been following my blog for some time. If you have been doing so you know me and where I stand regarding survival and preparedness. I really don’t care about doomsday prepper delusions. I love a good book or post apocalyptic movie as much as the next guy, but for me survival is a very serious, very REAL business.
Reality always trumps suppositions, let alone silly childish fantasies. This is why the videos below are so important. They just destroy so much of the nonsense floating around the “prepper” community therefore I encourage you to watch the two videos and learn.
These are farmers. Real, tough, well armed resilient people, dealing with the harsh reality of a level of crime and violence surrounding them that you simply cannot understand. Try not to think “oh, but not here, not me!”. This is exactly how America would be like if the government either looses control of the country or it simply allow it to become a land without law. The famous WROL (without rule of law). This is what WROL looks like, or even worse yet WFROL. Without FAIR rules of law, because that’s what these poor people have to deal with. The laws do exist, but they are there to destroy them, to scare them out of their own land. Watch and learn. Watch, and understand how 99% of the childish WROL planning we see floating around being promoted by “experts” that never picked up a book or even bothered watching a documentary in their life would fail miserably in a matter of weeks.

Farmer's wife Ida Nel learns how shoot an AK-47 and a pistol on a 'farm protection weekend Read more:
The entire series of documentaries is excellent, but at the very least, watch these two:
Back to Africa - episode 2 - The Promised Land

Back to Africa - episode 4 - The Right of Mugabe

Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this, Ferfal. I would like to comment that there is a worldwide misconception that is perpetuated by the liberal educational system and the media, that Africa is only for "black people" since they were there first. No, this is not true. White people have been in Africa since the beginning of time. But there is so much stupidity in the world, that only the very few intelligent people in the world know this fact.

Pericles Athenian said...

For all of these who fantasize about fortified castles in zungles and deserts just read in wikipedia "Rhodesia" and "Ian Smith". You will learn about the fate of one, despite the heroic efforts of its defenders.
Farmers are too scattered to defend efefctively themselves. The closer you are with your friends/companions the better for you, basic rule of survival.

Don Williams said...

1) I am not sure Rhodesia can be used as a general rule. A small white population emigrated there circa 1900, drove the natives off the best land and set themselves up as an aristocracy while never being more than 4 percent of the population at the peak.

2) Plus the "white" community was bitterly divided. Great Britain supported UN economic sanctions after Rhodesia grew tired of being exploited as a colony and declared independence. Plus there has been a conflict between British whites and Dutch whites in southern Africa going back to the Boer war and London has always fought whites in Africa who objected to being screwed. London bleats about "moral principles" only when there is some propaganda and commercial value in them. Rhodesia was destroyed as much by London's economic warfare as by Mugabe -- and there are plenty of wealthy whites still doing business with Mugabe.


3) In the USA, in contrast, blacks were kept in slavery for over a century, were freed circa 1865, were kept economically suppressed ,especially in the South, for a century after that and today make up only 12.5% of the population with non-Hispanic whites making up 64% and Hispanics making up 16%.

4) As in the British Empire, billionaires in the USA use the two political parties they own to play blacks and blue collar whites off against each other --so that the billionaires can "divide and conquer" and screw both.

5) I have the impression that urban blacks are as wary of the white blue-collar rural countryside as rural whites are of going into black ghettos.

Which is why a truly hilarious movie could be made about the US government getting alarmed over Putin and executing old Cold War crisis relocation plans to house urban dwellers in private homes in rural "host areas". Especially with a racially mixed US Army carrying out the order.

dc.sunsets said...

If an economic meltdown does lead to a breakdown in top-down order, people band together to re-establish order.

I find it sad and silly that people cite fiction novels as a basis for acting to see to their future welfare. If WROL actually did occur for long enough, all you'd see would be gated communities separated by no-man's-land through which only heavily-armed caravans would travel.

Those bugging out to the woods would soon find the woods crowded with other idiots and depopulated of everything edible.

Don Williams said...

Re dc.sunsets at 7:18

1) If by "gated communities" you are referring to today's gated communities, I would disagree. Today's gated communities in the suburbs are a joke -- no walls, no real defenses other than a call to the police, and with a population density too low to mount a defense --unless perhaps 4 households merged into a common home and left the other three to the looters. And even there, adjacent homes provide cover and concealment that would let looters get in close.

Even an isolated farmhouse would be more defensible if it had clear fields of fire for 100 yards out, if 10 families moved into it, foxholes/fighting positions were placed on the four corners and the interior had a safe room with sandbags.

2)If by gated community you refer instead to a walled, fortified village/ hill town like the ones in Tuscany during the Middle Ages then I would agree.

TheModernSurvivalist said...

No, when I say gated community I mean gated (or walled) meaning it has a guarded phisical perimeter. What you think of is private neighborhoods which may have some community aspects but arent closed or safer.

Don Williams said...

1) What screws farmers is being in the way of billionaires agendas.

In the case of Rhodesia, being a threat to Anglo American PLC --
world's largest platinum producer. Rhodesia, along with South Africa, had the only significant deposits of platinum outside the Soviet Union.

2) Most readers here don't remember the US Congress voting in mandatory automobile emissions controls in the 1968 -- preceded by California in 1966. Those emissions controls forced America's auto companies to buy platinum in massive amounts for the necessary catalytic converters.

A huge opportunity for profits -- provided the massive number of low paid African workers needed for production could be kept quiet in the face of Soviet attempts to promote revolution.

Every time there was a big labor strike, the Oppenheimers
--owners of Anglo American and subsidiaries --bled money in vast amounts.

And when Rhodesia declared independence from British rule in 1965 -- and moved outside the British Commonwealth in 1970 -- those white farmers went from being a mere provocation for black rebellion to posing the threat of nationalization of the platinum windfall.

Hence, Angle American's political prostitutes in London discovered "Majority Rule" as a nice cudgel with which to beat the farmers.

Even though "Majority Rule" was a hilarious political stance
for an enormous corporation owning about 40% of South Africa's wealth --
diamonds (Debeers), gold, platinum, etc etc.

While Anglo American was happy to give lazy lipservice to the overthrow of apartheid (someday) -- in order to stave off labor strikes and rebellion that could lead to eventual nationalization -- it fiercely opposed giving black workers a decent wage.

And black middle managers -- Mugabe in Rhodesia and
Nelson Mandela in South Africa -- proved to be more cooperative, protective and helpful than
Ian Smith.

See .

The conniving Rich are a far worse threat to you than your low income countrymen. That is the one constant truth running across Argentina, Rhodesia and the USA.