Revolutionize Your Survival Food Strategy Part III

After doing some investigation I decided to purchase some of the Chia seeds for home trial. I have 3 test subjects in mind that seem to run out of energy late in the week, so this will be a good test for us. I looked in the health food section in Fred Meyer's and did not find any, but the Health Food store had a small quantity available. I purchased 3ozs as the price per lb was marked way up, $24 per lb, or thereabouts. The price per ounce was $1.47. The best price I found on the web so far is $5 per lb. I want the boys to try it on a school day as that will be the best test for them to see how much it increases their energy levels.

Revolutionize Your Survival Food Strategy Part III
by Rich Loomis (richloomis@hotmail.com)

______________________________________________
An excellent online wholesale source for this product -- from whom I have purchased several times with reliable result -- is linked below. (I have no financial connection or affiliation of any nature with either the sale or promotion of this food item.)

The usage figures in this article are based upon the most-frequently quoted requirement of one tablespoon per day; one pound of chia measures out to approximately 42 tablespoons, thus 10 pounds equals 420 daily measures. At link below, 50 lbs (nearly six years of healthy survival) can be purchased for only $225 -- the best food bargain on the planet and perhaps soon to disappear amidst societal upset, etc. Don't delay!

http://www.naturalremi-teas.com/mm5/merchant.mvc
___________________________________________

Practical Applications, Conclusions, and Recommendations

As many of us have observed, human nature tends to stubbornly cling to its conceits and preferences and acquired tastes, even to the extent of dismissing out-of-hand anything that does not conform to its preconceptions and habits and societal imprinting.
As Arthur C. Clarke put it:

Every revolutionary idea — in science, politics, art, or whatever — seems to evoke three
stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases:
(1) "It's completely impossible — don't waste my time";
(2) "It's possible, but it's not worth doing";
(3) "I said it was a good idea all along."

For instance, if one's mindset is deeply invested in the notion of backwoods hunting, subsistence gardening, animal husbandry, and such like as the "final and only answer" to any threatened food-chain upset, then the concept of a temporary (or long term!) one-grain portable solution might seem anathema, or purely ridiculous. Yes, a fair number of societyweary individuals have historically "fasted in the wilderness" for one reason or another, with varying degrees of success and/or regeneration of body and soul -- but this practice has pretty much gone out of favor, however beneficial it might be to one's evolving life-focus, inward "listening" and progress.

By contrast, the relatively luxurious home-garden-apple-orchard approach (though quite laudable and rewarding during "normal" times) tempts the obvious danger and likelihood that one's hard-earned paradise will at some point almost certainly be discovered and plundered. (Not to mention its inherent vulnerability to weather anomalies, pests, soil/crop disease, and similar problems that are challenging enough even under the best of circumstances.)

Even the most carefully hidden fruit trees and gardens have the inherent propensity to eventually serve as little more than a yummy "menu" arrow pointing straight at the home larder and family. Whereas, the counter-strategy proposed herein is to essentially forsake any sort of dependency on field-crops, chicken coops or fixed homesteads for survival purposes, period. Leave that worthy dream for a time and place AFTER peace, law, and order has been fully or near-fully restored!

This brings us at last to what might be regarded as a philosophical crux of dissent and divergence which I've observed in my own recent efforts to share this powerful yet humble survival tool named chia: certain self-proclaimed "experts" on the Internet inexplicably either lapse into silence when presented with this proposition, or immediately and actively oppose this new/old "energy food" approach. It's frequently due, in my estimation, to what might loosely be termed a cultivated "fortress mentality."

[James Wesley Rawles, being a case in point. Although a popular "end times" novelist and webmaster, he blithely dismissed my suggestion to publish this vital message on his well visited website, via a one-line brush-off to the effect that it contained "too many quotes" from Mr. Scheer's book (even if openly attributed!)]

I leave it to your judgment, dear reader, whether the full thrust of the necessary argument and logic -- with its vital historical underpinnings -- could have been conveyed without these persuasive real-life anecdotes and affirmations from various people's experience.

At base, Rawles pooh-poohed the offering because I was not sufficiently speaking "from experience" -- yet how many among us could rightfully aver that we are Tarahumara Indians, or how many of us have managed to conduct our own group A versus group B strenuous hiking tests, and so on? The overriding morality at this juncture is to AWAKEN and INFORM and SAVE LIVES rather than quibble over protocol.

If an obviously sane and caring writer such as Mr. Scheer were to inform me that a certain path led into a swamp, would I be amiss in conveying that same warning to other people that I happened to encounter? Do I need to step into the muck myself, or would it be sufficient and proper in speaking with others to simply add the caveat that it was Mr. Scheer and not myself, that had originated the advice?

Especially in these troubled times, I regard this sort of shared exposition as a textbook example of potentially live-saving "fair use" but . . evidently a number of other people with a Rawles-type mindset would likewise rather let children and parents perhaps perish with fatigue and starvation, or suffer capture and torture, rather than allow a few more quotes than they normally "prefer" to see in a  submitted article. (Those quoted paragraphs, while indeed somewhat lengthy, actually amount to a relatively modest percentage of the author's total text.)

One may also generously opt to dismiss the possibility of egotism, envy, arrogance, and hubris as being a significant part of the mix -- but that would entail ignoring human nature, yes?

The overwhelming majority of "survivalist" web pages and forums seem to primarily align themselves with the strategy and practice of sinking nearly all of one's resources into a semi-impregnable homestead, and then arming/training nearly every inhabitant in its defense-to-the-death.

As in the Rawles' example, this typically requires several hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into land, structures, fruit trees, gardens, rabbits, chickens, goats, and such like plus an expensive arsenal, coupled with years of ongoing firearms training involving many thousands of rounds of expended ammunition (with attendant noise, smoke, etc) then top all that off with extensive medical supplies, motor vehicle pools and tools, communications gear, perimeter alarms, patrols, carefully-defined fields of fire, explosives caches, command-detonated mines, -- the list goes on and on!

Indeed, if one insists upon adopting that highly questionable Fortress-of-Eden mindset and strategy from the get-go, then you'd damn well BETTER have the 82nd Airborne Division (or its equivalent!) dug in and camouflaged throughout the vicinity! Why?

Because it's been well validated by many experienced woodsmen and hikers and "good 'ol boys" who write to the forums, that your retreat has probably ALREADY been repeatedly observed, very likely by a wide variety of people. (Or if you don't have a homestead garden/orchard retreat yet, but plan to establish one, the same "discovery" rule applies during either construction or later usage.)

Short of taking your cows and chickens and fruit trees and claymores into the wilds of Alaska or Patagonia, the local residents along with seasonal hunters, game wardens, BLM/Forest Service choppers, or satellite electrical-emissions scanners or . . whatever . . WILL notice what you're doing, and even if they haven't yet, rest assured that once the millions upon millions of fleeing city people trickle (even with huge losses) into your region with their SUV's and trail bikes and backpacks, your rustic homestead WILL more than likely be discovered in due course.

Moreover, these observant and very hungry refugees or armed gangs probably will NOT be so stupid as to attack frontally or individually. They will scout around, and adroitly pick the time and place for their deadly intentions . . leading to the obvious question: which of your friends or family are you comfortable with being sniped or ambushed or barbecued by torturing cannibals FIRST? Yes, perhaps in subsequent battle you CAN emerge victorious, overall, from the fray (or at least from the FIRST one of many?) but at what cost in precious lives and investment?

Unfortunately, being a stationary target means that time is on the side of the enemy: plenty of starving, desperate cannon-fodder men, women and even children will either volunteer or be forced by ruthless warlords to test your defenses, and do you really think your ammo and nerve and luck will forever hold?

It would presently appear that for every practicing retreater, there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of unprepared men and women who WILL nevertheless try to make up their mental/moral shortfall at your expense. And make no mistake: in due time, however much initial attrition and infighting and fumbling on the part of the aggressive roiling masses, some highly vicious, capable leaders WILL at length emerge from the chaos, and will skillfully direct their now tightly-disciplined and motived minions straight to your bountiful-garden doorstep -- unless you are either VERY remote, or very lucky, or both.

Depending upon which scenario the "powers that be" might opt to deploy against humanity, instead of facing ruthless/desperate fleeing citizens, the homestead might instead find itself struggling against large numbers of Chinese troops, or U.N. blue-helmeted thugs drawn from nations we've bombed and ruined or otherwise counted as enemies previously, i.e. no-nonsense hardened cadres from Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan, the Balkans, perhaps even Russia or Haiti or Pakistan, etc. Plenty of deliberately-fostered hatred there, and yes, they WILL eagerly look forward to their chance of rape, mayhem and revenge against the once-mighty USA.

So then, one way or another, the Rawles-mentality sort of retreaters must necessarily "put it all on the line" for their open-target orchards and ponds and rabbits and gardens and gun ports and perimeter defenses, etc, thus it is natural that they would sneeringly adopt an ingrained, public-persona macho "defend the Alamo" semi-eagerness to confront all comers.

"They'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" is their war-cry, but the subliminal, virtually unperceived overtones in this prideful stance echo Scripture itself: "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." I.e., if your "treasure" is near-totally invested in a homestead garden-fortress, your "heart" will not want to hear anything contesting that stance, even if another, inherently far safer option might more appropriately see the family through the coming upset.

As bizarre as it may seem, I suspect that the very simplicity of what might be called the "chia solution" has overtones that "spiritually" rebuke the fortress-Eden cowboys and gunnergardeners, and that much of the seeming antipathy/apathy arises from this nearly subliminal divergence of substance and style.