Dealing With Judgment As A Prepper
Why are we judged negatively for being prepared and self-sufficient?
In this post, I want to talk about the judgment we’re subjected to as preppers or survivalists.
Let me start by saying that I don’t feel sorry for myself as a prepper and I sure hope none of you feel sorry for yourselves. Preparedness is a choice and with all choices, there are certain things that come with the territory. It’s not fair, but we don’t live in a cost-free world. Moreover, we live in a world where we’re constantly being judged. Dealing with it is a part of being an adult.
Our culture is full of terrible wisdom, an example being, “Nobody’s judging you.” What a lie that is. Humans are, if nothing else, judgmental creatures. It comes with having well-developed brains allowing us to do more than think only about our physical well-being. We’re constantly in a state of judging others and being judged in return.
That’s said, nobody’s preoccupied with you. When taken in good faith, I think that’s what people really mean when they say we’re not being judged. In turn, I think the correct wisdom to impart is, “Everyone’s judging you, so don’t worry about it.” It’s the same as saying, “Don’t worry about things beyond your control” in another context. None of us enjoy being judged, but we can’t stop anyone else from doing so. Therefore, why concern ourselves with it?
Unfortunately, we do live in a society. In a society, judgment is involved. Otherwise, it’s impossible to establish order. Sometimes, that judgment can manifest in deleterious ways, like when it comes to prepping and survivalism. Why is that? Why are we judged negatively for being prepared and self-sufficient?
Preppers Buck The System
When you really think about it, there’s nothing remarkable about being a prepper. The more I’ve gotten into it, the more I think to myself, “Why don’t more people do this? Why aren’t more people aware of their surroundings? Why don’t more people have emergency supplies? Why don’t more people have basic emergency-handling skills, like CPR and first aid? How come people are so ill-prepared to deal with emergencies that can occur on a daily basis?
The questions go on and on. The fact is, people aren’t prepped because civilization allows us to abdicate and outsource basic responsibilities to ourselves and loved ones. It’s both a benefit and a curse of civilization to be able to be less preoccupied with your physical well-being on a day-to-day basis. And why not? Worry less about your physical wellness, you can worry instead more about your mental wellness. It’s easier to enjoy life when not concerned at all hours about living and dying, isn’t it?
Yet, our well-being is, ultimately, our responsibility. But not everyone is capable of looking out for their well-being, either. Some of this is due to physical limitations. It’s also because some have completely outsourced this responsibility, stripping themselves of what’s ultimately a component of their biology: the instinct of self-preservation. It doesn’t go away completely, no; it’s part of what makes us selfish. But it does put a brake on the extent to which we’re willing to take proactive measures to ensure our safety. The key difference, I think, between the prepper and non-prepper is that the former is concerned with self-preservation before danger is encountered, while the latter becomes concerned with self-preservation only when danger is encountered.
Being concerned with self-preservation prior to dealing with danger necessitates self-reliance. Self-reliance entails less dependency on the government. Hence, preppers are less reliant on the system as a whole. It doesn’t mean preppers are anti-government as popularly conceived, though the sentiment definitely exists within the community. For the most part, however, preppers merely understand the government cannot be everywhere, they cannot guarantee outcomes, nor should they. They also understand the limits of government, internalizing the fact that we’re all responsible for ourselves, in the end. These are all things that shouldn’t be controversial and need not trigger such strong feelings in response, but they do.
Hence, preppers are viewed as “radicals” (many are, according to present-day values) and “rebels” (we are, in some ways) just because they choose not to stake their fortunes on institutions which, like the rest of us, ultimately look out for themselves and cannot be everywhere for everyone all at once. The perception is that preppers are basically selfish, uninterested in the common good, but ask yourself: if you provide for your own needs, how does that detract from anyone else’s needs? If you cannot take care of yourself, how can you take care of anyone else? During every pre-flight safety demonstration, they always instruct: when cabin pressure is lost and those oxygen masks fall from the ceiling, put on your own mask first before helping others. Preppers are only applying that same principle to daily life.
Even in such an open and tolerant society like America, there are inevitably outsiders. Anyone who doesn’t conform to society’s prevailing values will always be regarded differently, sometimes with derision. A country that once valued rugged-individualism and self-reliance has ended up as authority-worshiping as any other in the world, undoubtedly an outcome of generations of prosperity and stability. Many people will look at preppers and wonder, “Why would anyone spend so much money and time preparing for emergencies when there’s nothing wrong? Handling emergencies is a job for the professionals!”
As the slow-boil crisis in America and the West increases in intensity, prepping will become more popular, but resentment towards preppers will increase as well. We’ll be accused of undermining the system, “stealing” a lifeboat for ourselves while leaving everyone else to go down with the ship. This isn’t true, of course, but the truth never matters. Envy is a powerful emotion; it’s a common motivation behind many crimes. If people are eyeing others’ slices in the good times, with plenty to go around, guess what happens in an SHTF, where there’s not as much to go around?
Hence, the paradox inherent in prepping: in doing so, we are better-ready to deal with the coming storm, but it’ll also make us targets of hostility in the process.
Preppers Expose The Inadequecies of Others
We live in a time where we’re as educated as we’ve ever been, but we’re as unskilled as ever. We’ve outsourced so much to others that we’ve forgotten how to do things like cook, fix things, or even properly assess a situation. Prepping is a step back towards learning the basics of living and knowing the basics is often most critical during an emergency. For example, where is the nearest hospital? Seemingly useless knowledge on the good days suddenly becomes indispensible knowledge on a bad day. Preppers have the basics down better than most.
On the other hand, non-preppers are often at a loss as to how to deal with an SHTF, be it at a personal or societal level, because our reactions are a combination of nature and nurture. Without nurture, we lean more on our nature. Without nurture, that fight-or-flight response overwhelms us, leading us to behave in irrational, unreasonable ways in response to crisis. How many times have you heard someone say, following a stressful event, “I don’t know what I was thinking?” when trying to explain their behavior?
Those who are prepped, by contrast, better equipped physically and emotionally to deal with hardship. They don’t lose their cool as easily and don’t become flustered, losing control of their emotions. They’re also quite skilled, capable, and self-resourced, relying less on the system to deal with a problem. This can create feelings of resentment among non-preppers, who feel inadequate by comparison. It explains why gun control activists, for example, are so offended by the thought of their peers possessing the means of violence. Being obsessed with “equity,” they consider gun ownership to be unfair (to whom, it’s not clear) and the refuge of those frightened by their own shadow. The reality of violence aside, they believe nobody should possess any greater means of violence than they’re personally willing to possess.
In some ways, it’s the old high school mentality of envying your classmates playing out in the real world. We don’t like anyone being “better” than us, so we don’t like anyone being more prepared than us. This isn’t to say that preppers are morally superior in any fashion than non-preppers. That’s not necessarily true. Preppers constitute all different types of personalities and some can be toxic. There are some genuinely problematic individuals within the community, something I’ve talked about before.
But prepping is also a mentality more than a state of being. I’m less prepped compared to many others in the community, due to both circumstance and choice, but I still have the mindset of someone ready to deal with an emergency at any moment. It doesn’t come easy, but I get over the initial shock caused by emergency fairly quickly, allowing me to promptly enter problem-solving mode. Overcoming that fight-or-flight induced paralysis is often the most important step, but some of us just cannot make that transition, in the end relying on those better capable and equipped than we are to fix things for us.
The tension between those who are prepped and those who aren’t can boil over into conflict. For example, if an emergency happens, someone who’s prepped may automatically take charge of the situation, if only by being the first to engage the scenario. As they take action, they may start instructing others who are willing to help, but not willing to take orders. It ends up creating a chaotic situation where more time ends up being spent arguing than problem-solving. In an SHTF, the biggest challenge may not be the disaster itself. It may end up being people, the very people whom you need to be able to turn to for help, in fact.
Prepping Isn’t Paranoia
Perhaps the most common reaction to prepping is that it’s an indulgence of paranoia, an irrational fear of change and the unknown. Paranoia is prevalent within the prepper-survivalist community, no doubt. But there’s also plenty of paranoia outside the community as well. At least preppers and survivalists are doing something to address their concerns.
However, most serious preppers are motivated not by irrational fear, but by a desire to be ready to handle any challenges life throws their way. Preppers often draw on personal life experience, not scary news stories, to justify their preps. After all, there’s no greater wake-up call than firsthand experience. If you’ve ever had a flat tire, you know what that feels like. Instead of waiting hours for a tow truck to show up, you choose to learn how to change a tire so you can get back on the road sooner. Maybe you had an experience where you needed cash because cards weren’t accepted, but there wasn’t an ATM to be found. Or something broke inside your residence, you could fix it, but didn’t have the tools for the job, with the delay in repair causing a major inconvenience. Learning life lessons the hard way is often what gets us on the road to prepping.
Not everyone learns from experience, of course. Some choose, even after all they’ve endured, to go back to living in their zero-defects dreamland, where bad things never happen, where problems just work themselves out on their own, or they’re completely outsourced to others. Then they describe those who choose to prep as being paranoid and overreacting to “life,” as if preparedness is something normal, well-adjusted people don’t do. The only time they give you any credit is when they run into an emergency and you show up, like Johnny-On-The-Spot, with your gear and skills to save the day.
A milder form of this critique is that preppers are chronic worriers who just can’t take it easy, constantly living life on the edge. First, worry is a part of life. Nobody goes through life without a single worry. Those who have no concerns have nothing going on in their life. Some obviously worry more than others. Maybe preppers do worry more than non-preppers but look: that’s why we prep. We prep so we don’t need to worry, because we’re ready for the moment we’ll be put to the test. If prepping makes me a worrier, I can assure you, as can many of my fellow preppers, that we aren’t worried any longer. Meanwhile, non-preppers are making a conscious choice to not worry about something despite being totally unprepared to handle any scenario. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
Which leads to one of the most important reasons to prep: manage risk. It’s not possible to eliminate all risks, but you can whittle them down. For example, you cannot prevent flat tires, not 100 percent of the time. However, if you have a decent tire iron, a portable jack, and the skill and strength necessary to change a tire, you’ve at least eliminated the risk of being stranded on the road indefinitely or having to rely on outside help. It’s certainly irrational to worry about things beyond your control, but it’s hardly irrational to worry about things you can control. Preppers are all about tackling things they can control, while letting go of the things they can’t control. In doing so, they’ve removed worries from their lives and can get on with the task of living.
Is there really anything to argue about there?
You Can’t Make It On Your Own
Prepping can be a lonely lifestyle. But it need not be. It shouldn’t be. When SHTF happens, you don’t want to be alone. Part of the reason our last national SHTF, the COVID pandemic, was tough to endure was the state-imposed isolation, effectively being confined to our residences. I suppose there are worse things in life, but that fact didn’t make it any easier. During hard times, you need to be with people.
Todd Sepulveda, who hosts the Ready Your Future podcast, discussed considerations when putting together a Mutual Aid Group (MAG). Other commenters call it a “tribe,” but I’ll stick to Sepulveda’s term, since the name clearly defines its purpose. As a prepper, we should all have a MAG, but we don’t. It’s never too late to assemble one, though during an SHTF isn’t the most ideal time to do so.
Let’s discuss some of those considerations when putting together a MAG. Some of these are drawn directly from Sepulveda’s podcast, while others are my own.
Your Friends May Not Be Reliable In An SHTF
This one’s a tough pill to swallow. During times of stability, it’s easy to get along with anyone. In the past, this wasn’t always the case, even when there was no SHTF happening. Civilization today makes it possible for people from different walks of life with equally different, often clashing, value systems to live among each other without much issue. It even allows us to be friends with people who differ vastly from us.
During an SHTF, that’ll change. SHTFs expose us to the harsh realities of life and are often situations where there are more resources than people. Like the old saying goes, “When the chips are down, you find out who your friends are.” You’ll discover that some people aren’t that reliable during a crisis and often become incapable of functioning. Others have personalities that are incompatible with yours, becoming even more so during emergencies. Someone who’s an annoyance to you or you have minor squabbles with during the good times will become absolutely insufferable during the bad times. We’re not meant to live with everyone.
Diversity won’t be a strength during an SHTF. It’s not really a strength to begin with. Diversity creates conflict that otherwise wouldn’t exist with a more homogeneous group. Look at the amount of fine-tuning our society needs to engage in to keep the peace between various groups of people. This isn’t an argument against diversity, per se and diversity isn’t the only reason why conflict arises between people. It’s, however, a reminder that diversity won’t make your MAG better. Some cultures are stronger than others and simply won’t follow anyone else’s lead or insist on looking after themselves first and foremost. The unfortunate truth is that SHTF tends to fracture social unity, even if everyone comes together in solidarity at the beginning of a crisis.
You ought to be careful about whom you associate with at all times. You are the company you keep, after all. During an SHTF, however, you will need to be even more discriminatory about who you allow into your circle of trust.
Family First
We don’t choose our family. However, they’ll be who you turn to first in times of trouble. Hopefully, your family relationships are strong enough to withstand the stress an SHTF will cause. Even if they’re not, your family will still be better than nothing. Factor them into your emergency planning, always.
That said, don’t anticipate that everything will go smoothly, even if you have a good relationship with everyone. Being forced to live in close proximity with one another during a crisis will inevitably cause conflict. If you disagree, think back to 2020 during the COVID lockdowns. I saw it firsthand. I know someone whose marriage came to an end as a result of spending so much time together during the lockdown. It exposed realities about their relationship and each other that brought them to their breaking points.
If you have a bad relationship with family, then expect those fissures to get blown wide open during an SHTF. Maybe it’s for the best - though not the opportune time for it, maybe it’ll provide an opportunity to settle those differences once and for all.
Values Matter
I noted earlier that stable civilization permits people of different walks of life and value systems to tolerate each other, even be friends. During an SHTF, clashing value systems will be a serious problem. Someone who thinks theft is justifiable for social justice reasons today won’t suddenly change their mind when the stuff hits the fans. Someone who is against violence or guns today isn’t going to suddenly pick up guns and knives during a society-wide emergency. Times of stress often reinforce existing belief systems, at least in the early going. Non-preppers, especially, will attempt to hold onto their preconceived notions for as long as possible, if only because they aren’t capable of making those quick mindset shifts when needed and everyone’s expecting things to return to normal, eventually.
Should you exclude such people entirely from your MAG? Someone who thinks it’s okay to steal now will likely not only be a potential thief within your group, they may also do things like give away resources to anyone who comes asking, out of a naive sense of compassion for others in distress. We all want to help everyone, but again, an SHTF is when people threaten to outstrip resources. What are you accomplishing by giving away things to everyone who shows up asking for help? As far as theft, it’s self-explanatory, but there’s no more certain a way to undermine trust within the group than to have a thief in your midst. If you need to explain that to an adult, you’re not going to be able to rely on them.
Someone who isn’t willing to use violence or has a problem with the use of violence in general in defense of self, others, and property is probably going to be a liability, as well. Protection is the top priority of a MAG - you need to be able to trust one another with your lives, if required. Someone with an aversion to violence today will either not come to your aid or, if they do, will be very ineffective at it. These are the kinds of people who’ll get you killed. Is it wise to have someone like that in your group?
There’s a difference between being unwilling and being unable to fight. Children and the elderly are bad options for forming the “frontline” of your MAG. But you need them to be able to at least in some fashion assist in the common defense. Children and elderly can stay indoors and cover an entrance while others take up positions outside, for example. At least, they shouldn’t be getting in the way and preventing others from doing the dangerous task of defending life and property.
Someone who lectures you about the immorality of using deadly force to defend property or how we need to help “marginalized communities” during an SHTF won’t be useful to you. They may be your friends today, but during hard times, your value systems will clash and someone will need to win the argument. Think long and hard about whether any upside they bring to the table is worth having that argument.
Someone Will Need To Be In Charge
None of like being told what to do. No group can function effectively without leadership, however. Whether with a singular decision-maker or by committee, someone needs to be the one making the hard choices and everyone needs to fall in line.
How are leaders selected during a crisis? Generally, leaders emerge naturally. Typically, they’re the ones who immediately spring into action, motivating others to follow. In a MAG, leadership can be appointed through a more deliberate process. There isn’t really a right or wrong way to do it; like most things in prepping, simple is better, and the most important thing is that the leader or leaders are someone everyone feels comfortable following.
There will inevitably some personalities within your group who insist on being listened to. Let’s hope there isn’t, but get enough people in your group, and such a personality will reveal itself. These individuals might be useful, but not as leaders. Yes, someone needs to be in charge, otherwise, nothing will get done. However, someone who bullies their way around won’t inspire confidence, eventually creating unnecessary friction that’ll threaten the group’s cohesiveness. Insisting on being listened to, snapping at people, being quick to remind everyone “this isn’t a democracy,” these are all red flags against leadership.
While leaders should be competent, knowledgeable preppers, they need not be the “best” at it, either. Leadership is about people, after all. Someone who can manage different personalities and get the most out of every member of the group is what makes an effective leader, not someone with the most gear and “hard” skills. As I explained before, other humans end up being the biggest problem during an SHTF, not the underlying crisis itself. It’s often better that the “specialists” in your group not fill any leadership role so they can focus all their energy on being good at what they do. For example, your mechanics are probably better off spending all their time fixing things, while your doctors should spend most of their time looking after people.
Your military veterans and cops might make great security team leaders, but group leaders? Leading troops into battle or maintaining public order aren’t the same thing as leading a MAG. They’re just not. If nothing else, nobody in your group is legally obligated to follow anyone else’s orders. The hard-line approach that works in the military and law enforcement won’t work here. Think long and hard about whether you want that grizzled War On Terror combat veteran in charge of your MAG.
That all said, everyone should be capable of some form of leadership. We’re not all exclusively leaders or followers; these roles shift depending on the circumstances. For example, in a medical situation, someone with experience in that field should be the one leading the effort. While a hard-line approach may not work most of the time, sometimes, a little extra “motivation” is necessary, especially when it comes to someone who chooses to make life more difficult for everyone else. There should be someone willing to say things that need to be said, but others don’t want to hear. Maybe this isn’t someone who ought to be fronting the group, but every group needs an “enforcer,” so to speak.
On a final note, good followership is as important as good leadership. Your leaders should be those who can read the room and understand when it’s time to zip up and take a supporting role and have the confidence to defer to others when appropriate.
The Sooner, The Better
I noted earlier that it’s never too late to build a MAG, but during a crisis isn’t the best time for it. That’s clearly an understatement. During a crisis is when emotions are running high and everyone is disoriented due to the sheer pace of events and information flow. Not to mention everyone else might be doing their own thing, not necessarily in the mood to be joining forces with total strangers.
Hence, the importance of building your MAG today. It’ll let you see who truly belongs, who has something to offer, versus who is going to be a liability. It’s not complicated: if someone is incompatible or clashes with the group during the good times, they’re going to be a menace to the group during the bad times. Sure, sometimes, crisis has a way of straightening out priorities, and some of us end up rising to the ocassion. But this is the exception, not the rule. Don’t take your chances with someone who can’t get along when there’s nothing on the line.
How do you remove problematic individuals from your MAG? It’s easier said than done. Clearly, it’s better not to let them into the group in the first place, so having some sort of “screening” process is useful. It doesn’t need to be anything formal. A meeting or group outing - think camping, the shooting range, etc. - will do just fine. Some people are good at faking it, but most of us show our true colors fairly quickly. Someone who can’t function normally in a low-stakes setting isn’t going to turn into an “operator” in a high-stakes setting. It just doesn’t work like that.
If a problematic personality does end up in your group and you find yourself amidst a crisis, what then? You may have no choice but to just let it play out. Sometimes, the stress of the situation might be getting to someone, so a “grace” period might be a good thing to have. Even preppers have varying personalities and may each respond to crisis differently, to say nothing of specific life circumstances. As much as it might be easy to say, “Check your problems and feelings at the door,” we create MAGs to get through tough times. Being totally unsympathetic to others can create a toxic, uncohesive environment, which is utterly not the foot you want to kick off a crisis with.
As always, be discerning - understand what’s most critical to group functionality and what’s something you’ll just need to work around. Clashes and disagreements will occur; these problems can be managed. What cannot be managed is dishonesty and selfishness. These things undermine trust within a group. Someone who lies, steals, or insists that everyone accommodate their needs because “reasons” is someone who should be straightened out. If they cannot be straightened out, they need to be forced to leave. Full stop. This may not be a dictatorship, but during an SHTF, group priorities take precedence over individual necessities. Those who don’t understand this don’t deserve group protection.
Are You All By Yourself?
What are your thoughts on anything we discussed here? Do you find prepping to be an isolating experience? Or do you have a group of people, a Mutual Assistance Group, that you know you can rely on in both good times and bad? Have you ever been criticized for prepping? What sorts of considerations do you believe to be important when assembling a preparedness group?
Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!