Some people are getting pretty defensive. Let me point out that the article is not about you. It's not about stocking food for a few weeks. It's about, as the title says, people who prepare for the collapse of civilization. The good thing about ETS is that it's not a survivalist forum.
Furthermore, I didn't see anything in the article that could be construed as an attack on survivalists. It just seems to try to report on the phenomenon, and attempts to make sense of it historically and socially.
I'll bet the writer considers you to be one of "them".
Unless you can provide evidence for this by quoting a damning passage from the article, I'll have to regard this as one of those psychological tricks I used to play on my classmates ("I'll bet you are not brave enough to eat that disgusting worm!").
I stand by my earlier statement. I don't even think anyone can tell the real attitude of the writer. Like a good journalist, he/she has put his/her own opinion aside to report on this phenomenon. It's a pretty good, even-handed article, I think. It does a good job of honestly representing the opinions of the people the reporter interviews, including survivalists and people who examine this phenomenon. Look at the extensive quotes. If there is a news article on some larger movement that you're a part of, you'd hope for your words to have that much air time. I'll bet you can't find a single sentence that makes fun of survivalists or "one of them."
The only thing I have to complain about is that the article fails to distinguish the various types of emergency preparation. But even so, I'd say it's far better than the National Geographic video, which just jumps to the sensationalist stuff (people shooting pets when SHTF, etc). By contrast, the preppers in the article seem rational. They just have a pessimistic view of the future.
Previous Topic
Index
