Ya know, Icky, if certain demographics are becoming sincerely interested in the idea of survival, that's great no matter what the motivation. No matter who the people are and no matter what walk of life they come from, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if some of them are coming to do so out of some sense they have for wanting to join a trend to pursue with a sense of stylishness.
After browsing that Times piece, the clues suggest there may be no other logical nexus for certain demographics, no other practical way to interest them in surviving the same turbulent times many of them have previously spent so much time and energy deriding as "paranoid theory".
The clues begin with what passes as nuggets of survivalist wisdom emanating from the likes of a "former chief global strategist of Morgan Stanley", who's short list of survival gear includes wine. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.” Supposing that law & order does completely break down, one must wonder what rational basis there is to imply such would be temporary, not permanent. It is not difficult to imagine this former muckety muck is not that far removed from the grade of beknighted individuals "leaders" who've already carved out lavish, taxpayer-funded, fully-furnished, well-stocked, hidey-hole, underground "survival" bunkers - which are actually miniature cities, where they plan to bravely wait out catastrophe occurring above ground. To even mention these openly of course immediately enters the realm of "conspiracy theory". Nonetheless, there is ample evidence these kinds of survival bunkers literally litter the underground spaces of this country from coast to coast. The clues continue upon considering the typical litany of lingo served up by those among the most hardened reality phobes against "conspiracy theorists".
Survivalism, it seems, is not just for survivalists anymore....people who do not consider themselves extremists are starting to discuss doomsday measures once associated with the social fringes....in case the future turns out like something out of “An Inconvenient Truth,” if not “Mad Max.” “I’m not a gun-nut, camo-wearing skinhead. I don’t even hunt or fish....Still, motivated by a belief that the credit crunch and a bursting housing bubble might spark widespread economic chaos (DUH) ..“If all these planets line up and things do get really bad,” .... At times, a degree of paranoia is officially sanctioned.....Esteemed economists debate whether the credit crisis could result in a complete meltdown of the financial system (DUH) ......Alex Steffen, the executive editor of www.Worldchanging.com, a Web site devoted to sustainability (code speak for globalist's warming agenda) said the chaos following Hurricane Katrina served as a wake-up call for him and others that the government might not be able to protect them in an emergency or environmental crisis. (DUH) .....Some middle-class preparedness converts, like Val Vontourne, a musician and paralegal in Olympia, Wash., recoil at the term “survivalist,” even as they stock their homes with food, gasoline and water. “I think of survivalists as being an extreme case of preparedness,” said Ms. Vontourne, 44, “people who stockpile guns and weapons, anticipating extreme aggression. Whereas what I’m doing, I think of as something responsible people do....the same way I think of buying health insurance and putting money in my 401k,”
Upon considering the sentiment housed in that collection of lingo it is not so difficult to imagine how or why it takes the fashion section of a big city newspaper to serve as an iconic, rallying front for the kinds of personalities attached to such mainstream, jingoistic sentiment and intellect. According to the Times, some among this target sector did not know much at all, apparently, about how survive until somebody wrote the general ideas into a book. All along they had been taking their survival tips and queues from popular culture, namely Hollywood as well as other novelists who have created for this sector their very own brand of unmitigated, actual conspiracy theories featuring Al and his merry, global green band of gloomy, inconvenient lies, to the ruse of Peak Oil. During the past 20 years, what other outlets aside from the usual suspects in tv, big screen, and printing houses have been programming people to the notion that survival is a concept only for extremists stockpiling guns and weapons in anticipation of extreme aggression? You wanna talk about an inconvenient truth? How inconvenient do you suppose it is for the average upwardly mobile to confront the decision to make preparations for surviving the kind of dilemma that they have in large part spent the past decade vociferously denying? Mainstream and pop culture have given them their own brand of middle-ground theory to cling to. A stylish approach to same may help to soothe the pains of inconvenience. Even if it doesn't, more people investing in survival is no doubt good for the sagging economy :)
Generally I agree with you. The opinions and agendas of the ilk of an Al Gore and his global supporters not withstanding, mankind's ability to erect survival mechanisms against the forces of Mother Nature pale in comparison - by orders of magnitude, to the forces Mother Nature can bring to bear .... but don't let that get in the way or otherwise stop the aforementioned ilk of opinions and agendas :)
I don't think the U.S. government is going to do much to help us through hard times, maybe the UK
I am not aware of much evidence that points to a rational probability for any government to "be there", to do much of anything to help the average person through hard times. If and when such catastrophe occurs, they (government entities) are very likely to be far too busy trying to carve out their own self preservation. Since you suggested there is something that distinguishes some governments in this respect - US v UK for instance, I would like to see your thoughts on what evidence there is to the contrary, or why it is you feel or believe that a government, any government, UK or other, intends to genuinely help their people survive catastrophe. On paper (corporate-grade paper), such would constitute a notable contradiction.
There is one thing that sort of gets lost in all of this modern-day survivalist talk. If you strip away all of the countless gaudy distractions that have over the eons come to be ubiquitously embedded into the world and the very lives of humanity, what will be revealed is that the humanity in it's most fundamental endeavor, has always been about one thing; trying to find a way to survive for another day. It took at least a few generations before humanity was convinced (or brainwashed) into seeing themselves in the new light, one that told them "you are not merely humanity, you are now dubbed 'the human race'".
It doesn't matter how far back in recorded time we go, the endeavor for humans to survive to another day has been the one constant throughout the entire known history of humanity. In other words, not only is "survival" not a new concept, it is probably the oldest concept that exists in the entire repertoire of the entire history of humanity. Yes, of course, it takes a media apparatus to convince us that we are all part of "a human race", and that "survival" is a new idea not discovered until the late 20th or early 21st century ;) It especially takes a media apparatus erected in support of a financial / politico apparatus to convince the world that "survival" is a new concept.
For most of us, myself included, the tricky part to getting into position to realize this fundamental constant is that most if not all people are likely to experience some great difficulty in doing the necessary stripping away of their distractions. Remember, most of us were long ago convinced that we are not simply members of humanity, but are members of the all mighty "human race". Just taking a conservative, relatively short term view, the race of humans has collectively spent the better part of the past two millenniums erecting vast institutions and empires concerned with sowing the world with distractions. Upon attempting to do so, many of us are likely to find ourselves stuck somewhere between unwilling and incapable of stripping away all of that necessary to come to the very simple and fundamental realization; survival has always been part of the essence of the human experience. Upon realizing this fundamental, if we then add back all the countless layers of stripped away distractions, the main change to the view of survival becomes - "how to survive well ... how to survive with a sense of style ....IE> how to survive better than the next person" ... IE> the race. The essence of distractions must of course include the concept of "race". It is not enough for humanity to be just plain humanity, we need to be "the human race" in order to add sufficient spice to the art of survival, right? As far as the human race goes, the last time anyone looked or reported in "a study", who was / is winning?
PS - where is the finish line? PSS - who (or at least on paper, what entity) decided where the finish line is? PSS - has it already been clearly decided and established? PSS - does the first person (or representative of an entity on paper) to climb out of a survival bunker - be it subterranean or perhaps one previously launched out into space, announce themselves accordingly .... maybe by ceremoniously stabbing a flag into the ground (or waving it from space) while screaming "I won the race!" officially win the race?