Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Surviving Minnesota. We hope you enjoy your visit. Feel free to post comments or questions and post topics you believe would be of interest to the group. You may do so without becoming a member.

If you wish to post a comment as a guest, you first must hit the "submit" button and a space to post will come up. DON'T forget to fill in the anti-spammer question, (it looks like an ad) - if you don't your comment will not be posted.

If you're serious about preparedness, self sufficiency, or simply want to learn more about it, we encourage you to become a member. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you become a member we only ask that you introduce yourself to the group. Thank you for visiting!


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What does OPSEC mean...really
Topic Started: Apr 4 2011, 09:15 AM (2,225 Views)
Raven
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
I still am of the thought that prepare for yourself and align your self with like minded folks, even if they are not family. We have talked of a group rule that any family that shows up has to get the majority vote of everyone BUT relatives. All relatives could have their say about skills, etc that the incoming had but this would theoretically make it easier to turn them away. It seems harsh and I am not sure that I could do it to some of my family but it would be necessary for the health and survival of the group. It would be easier to turn them away with provisions than for the entire group to die slowly of either starvation or internal strife...think of throwing off group dynamics in a time of stress and strife, but you are right, silence is the best policy.
Edited by Raven, May 26 2011, 08:18 AM.
The truth is not for all men, but only for those that seek it. Ayn Rand
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grizzly
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
Yea the 40 mile thing should be more like 400 miles and I'd question that too. The Rawels site had an article on different retreat security check list. It gave me something to think about although most of it I've already kept in mind anyway like any surrounding buildings or obsticals can be used against you as well as defense. Some things on the list we have covered but they say that no retreat is completly safe.
Our ancestors left Europe to get away from this crap...as seen on a bumpersticker fns
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mommacat
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
I would agree - no place is ever 100% safe. And, if the encroachers are long long friends and family, that makes it even less secure. I think the best thing to do is simply not give anyone the idea that you have anything they don't. That's kind of hard to do if they already know, though. I like Raven's idea of turning them away with provisions. But, I can see a pitfall there too; when they go down the road and camp for a week and run out, they'll just come back. Not sure what the answer is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HandFarming
No Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
Grizzly
Apr 6 2011, 08:59 AM
I also think that the manditory purchases are nessesary to prevent freeloaders. I can see it already, "I can't"... "I can't"...and then show up with an empty car and ask "when are we eating?" I realize it may be difficult for some but then they should have "something" to trade, labor, experience, some helpfull knowlede to make up for their lack of supplies. Maybe this should be brought up now and be serious about it to wake some up. Actually, I'm kind of thinking that if some haven't woke up by now... well, you know the rest. Time is running out and so is my patience with trying to save the world or just the people around me.
Boy, I hadn't read this posting. Some interesting thoughts. Here's my 2cents:

Though we have "preached" for years, we have been dismissed as fringe doomers and NONE of our family and friends had made an effort to prep. Sad because we told them early on-when they still had time to resource up.

Six years ago we told everyone we knew about peak oil by showing them Crude Awakening, now available on google videos. We adjusted our thinking and lives to lessen our need for oil and gas. They thought we went off the deep end in learning to grow food and manage chickens, goats and sheep. They all said -it's too much work and they don't have the time. And yeap, it takes a lot of work and time out of playing videos or watching tv. It means I can't take that vacation to the Dells because animals need us here. It means commitment.

Yeap, we expect people showing up and complaining because the food tastes funny because it got scorched when I dried it or doesn't taste like store-bought. Yeap, we expect people to complain the house isn't 70 degrees when it's 30 below outside. I suspect some will become seriously depressed and worthless to the rest. And will have to be cared for by others for a time. I expect that because I went through that SIX years ago and got through it by doing
something about it.

So, once whatever happens finally happens, then I will take my break and have others do the "what needs being done" while I read my list of books, take my adventure walks and me and hubby give ourselves the time we deserve for making their lives possible.

Sure we have a long way to go before we are completely energy independent -but we've at least got idea of what needs to be done.

Hang in there Griz, people will be sorted out in the first month of those who can do and those who can't, won't and don't.
You can lead an ass to knowledge, but you can not make it think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grizzly
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
I like your idea, relax and let everyone else earn their keep.
Our ancestors left Europe to get away from this crap...as seen on a bumpersticker fns
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HandFarming
No Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
When talking about storage areas, we divide stuff because we don't know exactly what sh!t will hit the fan first.

When talking to others, I suggest they have their stuff in secure storage and well hidden but if they need to leave it, then travel light to the safe haven. Once it's clear to return, then their stuff will be there.

In a long term, never going back there situ, then going back and collecting what is of value can be done in a group for safety.

Here's a thought I should run by (since this group have done some deep thinking on this subject) -in a long term situ, as the group develops issues, the biggest problem people should be removed by giving them some seeds to grow their own food and set up camp near-by to share in some resources like draft animals, tools and protection but get them on their own asap. Make them more like neighbors than dependents.
You can lead an ass to knowledge, but you can not make it think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mommacat
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
That seems like a very generous thought, HF. However, its my belief that the "problem" that will be the most likely to surface will be one of two things; they don't want to do their fair share of the work or they want to "be in charge". In either of those two scenarios, I'm not real sure moving them a short distance away will accomplish anything except maybe not having to look at them over the dinner table. We have discussed this quite extensively in other posts. I think that a reasonable and fair solution is that the person would be given whatever share of food stores that remained that was rightfully theirs, (Raven and I discussed a rather complicated calculation method to determine what that share would be for a family or an individual) or at least enough food to get them started if stores have dwindled. They would also take any personal items, tools and equipment they brought with them. Once they are out, they are out - that means they won't have use of any of the group's resources, be it oxen or planting land - if they don't want to be a part of the group enough to follow the group rules, etc. then it hardly makes sense that they get the benefits afforded to the "good" group members without having to cooperate with the group. It would be wonderful if a person could afford to be "charitable" but I would not put my own family in danger of having to suffer without food and security to satisfy my own sense of generosity; there is a larger issue here than being "nice", I think. I would add that, as things stabilized and people were able to make it more or less on their own, then a close community scenario with neighbors sharing large tasks like grain harvests and such and sharing equipment, etc. should be the goal for everyone. But, to reach that goal, a person would first have to learn to interact and survive as a group member. I keep thinking about the old adage, "A chain is only as stong as its weakest link", and I would want my group to be made of people that are willing to share - both the good things and the not so good things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HandFarming
No Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
So much to think about! And I appreciate the thinking things out before it becomes time to act. I, for one, would favor those who are friends and family over strangers who make their appearance, and I agree that what one brings for resources, they should take those with them.

It's really not a matter of being "nice" as that creates confusion. And, I understand there is a time when dictatorship-like organization has to happen between those who know what to do to those who need to know what to do. The problem is that there has to be a time when that type of organization ends or we end up with the same thing we have now for society. The goal is instead to move away as quickly as possible from dictatorship to one of cooperation. I understand that sounds utopian but I refuse to operate under the same non-democratic type leadership we see in the world now where all the work of the masses is for the benefit of a few.

I guess at this point in time, I see those who choose to unite people during tragedy rather than divide them by their differences as being the future leaders....another utopian-like thought. The bottom line will always be to play it by ear...for those who are listening.
You can lead an ass to knowledge, but you can not make it think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mommacat
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
I am in absolute agreement with the idea of trying to move to a community type situation. But, I think you misunderstood - I would not in any way shape or form live under a dictatorship and that would not be the basis of my ideal "group". I was talking about individuals that show up and will not work or believe they should be able to call the shots, for whatever reasons. Those people should be asked to leave the group if they refuse to cooperate and contribute - and, in my opinion, in that event, the group owes them nothing further - its as I said, if they take it to the point of being asked to leave, they can't turn around and expect any of the benefits of belonging to a group. I don't believe that is a dictator-like expection, in fact it is rather socialistic - another idealogy I would not willingly embrace. But, until the world is "right" a socialistic society would stand the best chance of survival.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Raven
Member Avatar
Active member
[ * ]
I have drawn up a set of "rules" for our group that has yet to be voted on. In that set of rules, there is a leader and under him or her, there are team leaders who issue duty lists and make sure that the lists are complete. Because we have so few members, many duties are doubled up on people but can be easily relagated should more people show up. In the rules that I have drawn up, every member gets a vote and the leader can veto the vote with cause. Auxiliary members do not vote and will not get a vote until they have proven themselves and get the okay from the team leader that they are under. They would still have to be voted in by the rest of the members so they will have to prove themselves worthy of membership to everyone. I felt that it was unfair to the voting members to ask them to take someone in that they didn't get a vote on. They are the ones that would have to carry them should that member have an accident/illness and be bedridden.
That is a general idea of our rules and voting rights but I feel that it covers any problems in the beginning. The main thing that I wanted it to cover is that everyone is on the same page. It would be unfair for us to start bringing people in and have a every changing list of rules that seems to be applied at random. That sort of set up is what we have at work and the added stress of that is burdonsome.
Edited by Raven, Sep 24 2011, 11:40 PM.
The truth is not for all men, but only for those that seek it. Ayn Rand
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OPSEC · Next Topic »
Add Reply