"Lifeboat" movement

[dobanion]

I saw the recession coming, real estate imploding, etc, so in 2008 when it hit, my thoughts then were "it's about time" rather than "what's happening?"

I have been hoping quietly for a recovery. Knowing that the forces at work that will eventually sink modern civilization are still there. Hope that we have one more boom cycle, one more time around for me to keep my job and make enough money to jump out at the next peak and get a self sustained place in the middle of nowhere with solar/wind, lots of water, garden, crops, access to good hunting and/or fishing, etc.

I spend lots of time reading the news lately. I don't think it's gonna come back around. Things are just coming off the rails with such increasing frequency I think we have less than a year or two before we are all really on our own.

If you know of Michael Ruppert and his message, great, if not, give him a listen. He just did another talk (in Vermont) just a couple weeks ago, and here it is to view. Give a hour of your time, and let this sink in:

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/author-and-peak-oil-activist-michael-ruppert

Now, he talks about the soon to be released social networking for a post-collapse world, collapsenet (not sure the URL yet). The idea for like minded individuals to join together and talk about their skills, and how they might form new communities after the age of fiat money and oil. The "re-localization" movement. It's about forming "lifeboats" or small self sustaining communities.

There is 10 acres out in the Gorge area I have been looking at. It has lots of trees, and some open areas. It's about 2 miles off the highway. It's on a gently sloping hillside coming off a huge agricultural (wheat) plateau. The ground water is pretty much on the surface, there is a spring coming out of the ground that just weeps water all the time. It gets tons of sunshine (solar), and LOTS of wind (turbines). There is tons of deer, elk, and birds (hunting). It's pretty isolated, but within 5 miles of a small farming town. After years of searching, it's as close to the perfect "lifeboat" as I can find.

I can't afford to buy it with cash. And I don't need 10 acres for myself. I'd like to have few other people on my "lifeboat," neighbors to watch out for one another, share in combined gardening, etc.

And this forum is the best place I can think of for finding such people.

I propose that for anyone interested, we all form a land trust, and buy the property together, and share in it's use and development into a working lifeboat property. It could easily support 10 families, but I could make the purchase work with as little as one other party. It could grow as the collapse unfolds, as your extended family "gets it" and needs a place to go. And if everything turns out OK and the world keeps on turning, you'll have a nice weekend getaway, and/or retirement home.

Please PM me if you are interested.

Read More

 

[Just Jim]

Do you want any open discussion on this?

jj

 

[dobanion]

Of course!

 

[Just Jim]

When the Pilgrims came to America they set up a communal effort and found it didn't work so well. What are you going to do to guarentee each "owner" carries his own weight?

jj

 

[MikeE]

Thanks for starting this thread, and for bringing up a concrete suggestion. The land does sound wonderful. I currently live on a small homestead outside of Scappoose. I might be facing a reverse move back to the city due to my wife's sudden health needs. This would be the second country homestead effort I have undertaken, so am pretty familiar with what it takes, although still learning...
I think the most important resource to develop as we begin to confront greater social crisis is community - how to pool talents, share personal resources and knowledge.Having resources both within the city and outside would be ideal. This requires the involvement of many hands.In my current thinking, flexability is key.Just aiming for a rural redoubt might not be realistic. Is there a way for rural land to meet the needs of people who still live in town?
One really good thinker about these issues is Dimitry Orlov - google Club Orlov. He a Russian who was living in the uS when the Soviets collapsed and travelled back and forth between the two countries. His book is called Reinventing Collapse - comparing the two societies and their abilities to weather social breakdowns. He's funny too. One point he made was that when societies are crashing its actually better to have a big, inefficient bureaucratic management like in the USSR, because it takes the bosses much longer to lay you off.

 

[willseeker]

Pm sent.





Will

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Looking at the description, it sounds like this is not prime agricultural land. So for even a couple people trying to rely on this land (1-4 people), you will need at least 5-10 acres. I really don't think you will be able to use such a small lot as a "community". But that's just my opinion.

 

[dobanion]

The main thought is land co-ownership. I'm not trying to designing a thriving community of lots of people, just a way for several of us to have a viable "place to go" if things in the cities fall apart. The land would be divided in use at time of sale between all parties. We'd only have to pay to drill one well, and everyone could share in it's use. Stuff like that.

And by some weird chance, the lot I was looking at, just went from active to pending, like 30 minutes after I made the first post. Oh well. But there's still plenty of other land around.

 

[8ball]

If you know of Michael Ruppert and his message, great, if not, give him a listen. He just did another talk (in Vermont) just a couple weeks ago, and here it is to view. Give a hour of your time, and let this sink in:

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/author-and-peak-oil-activist-michael-ruppert

Ruppert has been wrong time and time and time again. Where are the camps? The end of the US economy? 25% unemployment? Food rationing? Like many of the doomers, he predicted all of these and they have not come to pass. I don't see what gives Ruppert, who is a former LAPD and journalist, such magical insight into the state of the world except for an extreme dose of paranoia.

It's like Gary North and the Y2K doomers all over again. Try getting North to explain all his paranoid rantings in 1999. One minute he is predicting the end of the world and the next minute it's January 2000 and he is off on some new paranoid trip.

There is no downside to this stuff. You can make all the claims you want and sell books, and few people ever call you on it. Anyone remember Stan Deyo? What about Hal Lindsey and the Late Great Planet Earth? Lindsey's been spinning stories for thirty years and even has a TV show, and he happily skips from one prediction to another. People have been incorrectly predicting the end of civilization since the beginning of time.

 

[Riot]

Wow...I actually like this idea. Instead of leaving civilization behind...being a "raider" or one of the "sheep", you are propossing that people band together and prepare together.

You might be on to something here!

Ruppert has been wrong time and time and time again. Where are the camps? The end of the US economy? 25% unemployment? Food rationing? Like many of the doomers, he predicted all of these and they have not come to pass. I don't see what gives Ruppert, who is a former LAPD and journalist, such magical insight into the state of the world except for an extreme dose of paranoia.

It's like Gary North and the Y2K doomers all over again. Try getting North to explain all his paranoid rantings in 1999. One minute he is predicting the end of the world and the next minute it's January 2000 and he is off on some new paranoid trip.

There is no downside to this stuff. You can make all the claims you want and sell books, and few people ever call you on it. Anyone remember Stan Deyo? What about Hal Lindsey and the Late Great Planet Earth? Lindsey's been spinning stories for thirty years and even has a TV show, and he happily skips from one prediction to another. People have been incorrectly predicting the end of civilization since the beginning of time.

So you don't think that we're at "Peak Oil"?

Simple Yes or No...because if you don't, then may I ask how much oil you think we have left. But if you do, then may I ask what you think we will use for fuel. Especially since we don't really have another form of fuel that will step in when oil dissapears.

How will the stores get stocked with food? How will our Military opperate? How will you get to and from work?

I'm just wondering where your basis is on this...because like you said about Ruppert, I mean anyone can be a sceptic of an "expert". You don't really need any facts either...just throw out names of other people that have been wrong in the past and suddenly you're the one that is right and the other person is wrong?

I'm just wondering what the basis of this thought is....I mean if you just want to believe that you don't need to prepare yourself in the event of an economic collapse, then so be it. Click on a new forum. Seriously, I mean there are other threads that you could browse that has nothing to do with survival and social collapse that you would probably be happy reading.

*edit*

Oh, and see his video at about 48 minutes...does the name "Clemmons" ring a bell? He's a man that should have been locked up for LIFE...yet was released from prison and killed 4 Lakewood PD officers in cold blood. For what? Because the state needed to let people go? Because it was ore "cost effective" to let "rehabillitated offenders" go? Everything in our society needs to change...we cannot keep maintaining all of these corrupt politicians. We can't keep printing money and lining it in the pockets of those that are supossed to have our best interest in minds!

 

[Sun195]

Setting aside the reasons to do something like this, have any of you ever shared ownership of a property before? We share ownership in a family cabin and that's been difficult at times - very different expectations about who pays for what, who does what, how clean to keep things, when it gets used, etc. I imagine you could get ahead of some of these issues by putting expectations in writing, but it can be challenging.

 

[dobanion]

I have visited a "intentional community" in rural Missouri that had a land trust as the owners of the land. Was gonna use that as a model.

But I do hear lots of resistance to this idea, more than anything. It saddens me. I'd like it not to be me vs the world when SHTF.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

I have visited a "intentional community" in rural Missouri that had a land trust as the owners of the land. Was gonna use that as a model.

But I do hear lots of resistance to this idea, more than anything. It saddens me. I'd like it not to be me vs the world when SHTF.

I would think that a better idea would be to find someone with similar thoughts who already owns land, lets say somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 acres, with a proper water supply. Then an arrangement can be set up where if shtf, they can supply the land for the community (in the event of shtf or whatever), and in the meantime, the rest of the members can invest in supplies, such as food, agricultural, communication, and water supply/storage equipment, ect.

That seems like a better investment of capital in preperation for shtf/disaster/teotwawki, ect. From my experiences, it seems like you will be extremely stressed with that small of an amount of land for multiple persons.

 

[dobanion]

Love that idea, IF (big IF) there was anyone with that much land that would even consider it.

Also, any "sweat equity" I put in could be taken away on the land owners whim. I'd have zero rights to any of it. I could build a homestead and one day he calls and says "you aren't welcome, show up and I'll shoot you."

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Also, any "sweat equity" I put in could be taken away on the land owners whim. I'd have zero rights to any of it. I could build a homestead and one day he calls and says "you aren't welcome, show up and I'll shoot you."

As far as that part, I was thinking that any investment that you made, such as supplies, would be best kept on your premise, until things look liked they were getting rough, then as a preemptive action, move the supplies on site until things get better, or worse enough that you have to relocate there. That way you don't have any assets in their possession during "calm times", in the case that the decide to shaft everyone else by pulling out of the arrangement.

Just seems easier than dealing with a shared property in my opinion.

 

[MikeE]

I would think that a better idea would be to find someone with similar thoughts who already owns land, lets say somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 acres, with a proper water supply. Then an arrangement can be set up where if shtf, they can supply the land for the community (in the event of shtf or whatever), and in the meantime, the rest of the members can invest in supplies, such as food, agricultural, communication, and water supply/storage equipment, ect.

That seems like a better investment of capital in preperation for shtf/disaster/teotwawki, ect. From my experiences, it seems like you will be extremely stressed with that small of an amount of land for multiple persons.

I'm a rural guy, but folks make a mistake if they think they need large acreage for self sufficiency. I grow most of our fruits and vegetables on less than 1000ft2. Check out the following links, which are outstanding:
Path to Freedom www.urbanhomestead.org
This is a family of four who converted their 66'x66' yard in LA into an urban homestead that produces 6000lbs of food per year!
The next link is Growing Power www.growingpower.org
Former pro basketball player Will Allen has created a network of urban farms in Milwaukee and Chicago. He saw that inner city folks did not have access to fresh food and set about doing something about it. He has received a McArthur Genius award and has established some serious grassroots industry, putting people to work doing urban farming and food processing.
Common theme of these projects - people working together using what they have on hand, and not giving in to fear.
As an editorial note that is sure to piss some of you off. If the goal is self-sufficiency - All the anti-immigrant bashing is really shooting ourselves in the foot. I have no problem admitting that I have friends who are illegal immigrants. One thing about the folks I know - they are seriously good gardeners/farmers - been doing it since they were kids. You know how it is when you watch someone who really knows how to use a firearm, or play basketball, or frame a wall? That's what it looks like when these friends get near a garden. Oregon has a skilled horticultural workforce that we are currently busy insulting by denying people drivers licenses and basically pissing on them. If the SHTF, these are the folks who will know how to grow food. They also have an agricultural revolutionary tradition. We need land reform on both sides of the border.Viva Zapata!

 

[PhysicsGuy]

I'm a rural guy, but folks make a mistake if they think they need large acreage for self sufficiency. I grow most of our fruits and vegetables on less than 1000ft2.

I'm a rural guy too, spent about 15 years on a farm. Its true that growing vegetables doesn't require much land, but in order to be fully self sufficient, you'd most likely want to have livestock, including chicken, cattle, pigs, ect. And without chemical fertilizers, you're going to need a bit of grazing land. Also you're going to need land for commons, waste disposal, agriculture, and you're going to want a large buffer from any neighbors for security and privacy. The situation is going to be quite different if shtf vs current kinds of situations. You're not going to be able to grow vegetables in your backyard garden in the middle of town, when there are probably plenty of starving people raiding places, you're not going to have running water, so you will have to have a water source very close by, ect.

Just what my thoughts on it are, I'd rather have as much land available as possible for land uses, for privacy, and in order to have enough room around you so that you can have a pretty good forewarning of intruders.

 

[Trlsmn]

I

If you know of Michael Ruppert and his message, great, if not, give him a listen. He just did another talk (in Vermont) just a couple weeks ago, and here it is to view. Give a hour of your time, and let this sink in:

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/author-and-peak-oil-activist-michael-ruppert

Michael Ruppert believes that Dick Cheney planned the September 11 attacks so I can't take anything the guy says seriously.

 

[MikeE]

I'm a rural guy too, spent about 15 years on a farm. Its true that growing vegetables doesn't require much land, but in order to be fully self sufficient, you'd most likely want to have livestock, including chicken, cattle, pigs, ect. And without chemical fertilizers, you're going to need a bit of grazing land. Also you're going to need land for commons, waste disposal, agriculture, and you're going to want a large buffer from any neighbors for security and privacy. The situation is going to be quite different if shtf vs current kinds of situations. You're not going to be able to grow vegetables in your backyard garden in the middle of town, when there are probably plenty of starving people raiding places, you're not going to have running water, so you will have to have a water source very close by, ect.

Just what my thoughts on it are, I'd rather have as much land available as possible for land uses, for privacy, and in order to have enough room around you so that you can have a pretty good forewarning of intruders.

Good points. The question is, what form of collapse are we facing ? If we are going into long-term recession/depression or a Soviet/Argentina style collapse maybe we can build a new economy based on community models. If we really crash, the model you describe makes the most sense.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Good points. The question is, what form of collapse are we facing ? If we are going into long-term recession/depression or a Soviet/Argentina style collapse maybe we can build a new economy based on community models. If we really crash, the model you describe makes the most sense.

True, different scenarios would definitely dictate different plans of actions, and of course something like a nuclear war or environmental disaster could rule out any use of these plans. I guess you'd just have to plan for what you'd think the biggest situation that might come up. I dont know exactly what kind of thing that the OP was planning for.