10
« Last post by Jackalope on May 16, 2024, 10:51:07 PM »
The large MAG that I'm involved with requires an application and a liability waiver, and the majority of members are of retirement age. Again, the leadership "talks the talk", but doesn't "walk the walk". In that group, I forecast a survival rate of less than 25% in any major event. This is based upon over 40 years of survivalist/prepper experience. I'm guessing that most will either freeze in their homes during the winter, or they will starve. Very few of them grow any of their own food, and most don't have a skill that could be used for bartering. A group that is focused on a liability waiver, is a group that probably isn't going to be viable when this chips are down. And supposedly this group vets potential membership, yet no one checked me out, and I'm considered a full member. I often wonder how many of those in attendance at the meetings are federal investigators or informants; I'm sure there's at least one.
Searchboss, you're correct about using the meeting to discreetly screen for potential members in other MAG's. I know what kind of person that I would want to be associated with when TSHTF. There's a few, but not many that have the skills, equipment, AND drive to survive. There's no minimum equipment list, or any kind of standardization. There's minimal discussion regarding defense, and communications. There's no planning, no contingencies, etc. The large group has no coordination, and they will fail big time, if something bad does occur. There's going to be many disappointed, dead members. The goals are stated in the membership application, but there's no hard rule about actually helping each other. After attempting multiple times to get communications coordinated, I've stopped bringing up the topic. My policy now is to help any member that directly asks for assistance, otherwise I don't bother and keep silent. As I've mentioned previously, my wife and I plan on leaving this group soon, as it doesn't offer much to us. I don't see that group enduring.
The other, smaller group, shoots together on a regular basis. A Class III FFL is a member, which helps with firearms purchases. The leadership has done local area studies, and they're aware of threats and resources in their locale. They also work with local farmers and homesteaders, making connections now, rather than later. Most grow at least some of their own food. Leadership acknowledges the skill sets of various members, and they defer to them when necessary.
It's an interesting dichotomy between the two groups. Personally, I prefer a smaller, more intimate group. If I'm going to be sharing a foxhole or a fire with someone, I'd like to know, "What kind of American they are." It's important to have similar belief systems, values, and morals. An application, or written agreement is just a piece of paper. It's better to know first hand the person who is going to be watching your back. Social interaction and team training gives you insight about fellow preppers. I actually actively invite potential MAG members to my homestead to show them how we approach preparedness. I'm not shy about showing my preps, but of course, I don't show everything. But enough is shown to let them gauge my apparent preparedness level. Regular communications between members is very important, whether by internet, phone or radio.
There's no perfect MAG. I think the best MAG would be a large family. The second best MAG would be like-minded neighbors. Otherwise, look for a group that is dedicated to survival and helping each other out, whether during an emergency or on a day-to-day basis. Those "people problems" can cause a lot of havoc in a group. Personalities and egos have a direct effect on the longevity of a group. I've seen groups where the "Alpha male" leader felt that any dissenting opinion was a direct challenge to his authority. Needless to say, that group didn't last long. Sometimes, egos just need to be tucked away.
Recent Posts
regarding MAGs, I?d like to see some discussion on the following:
