Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo

TEOMCROTE = TEOTWAWKI on steroids! The End Of Mankind's Current Reign Over The Earth takes into account that our ancestors were neither suicidal, stupid, nor our genetic inferiors but still wound up getting wiped off the Earth. Whereas CSER [cser.org: Centre for Study of Existential Risk] tries to PREVENT this dispensation from coming to an end, TEOMCROTE works from the eventuality/possibility/probability that the end our age takes place and what to do then

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
relocating


I loved ]this article, though it initially made me cringe because it seemed to suggest that staying put is wise and relocation is idealistic and foolish. However, whoever wrote it clearly has a lot of experience and is first writing from the assumption of common naivite about 3rd world countries among westerners.

Many worthwhile insights, like this bit about common 3rd world cultural tendencies to waste resources:

"For example, throughout South America, people often buy prescription medicines one pill at a time. They buy a bag of twenty screws from the hardware store, then return to the store after they run out to buy another twenty. This is often infuriating to the "gringos" who are trying to build a house, for example, because they operate with the idea that you should just buy 5,000 screws all at once and have plenty to get the job done. I can assure you from first-hand experience that such a concept is completely alien to a great many South Americans (most notably in rural areas).I make no judgments about this, by the way. There are pros and cons on both sides of this equation. But in my experience living in Ecuador, finding people engaged in preparedness planning was virtually impossible unless they were of European descent. For example, rural Ecuadorians often buy a small baggy of spices in a quantity for cooking one meal. And in doing this kind of thing, they nickel-and-dime themselves into actually losing money because they don't take advantage of the purchasing efficiencies realized through long-term planning. The idea, for example, of buying large quantities of facial tissue at a Costco or Sam's Club is completely foreign to most South American cultures (more so in rural areas than urban). Even if they might save 40% from buying in bulk, their cultural tendency is to buy one tissue box at a time, paying a much higher overall price over [sign in to see URL] concept is also reinforced by the very heavy reliance on state-run lotteries throughout South America. In any nation, high participation in lotteries is a powerful demonstration that a culture lacks the cognitive coherence necessary for intelligent financial planning. You see this heavily reflected throughout Peru and Brazil, by the way. You'll even find this in many poorer areas of rural USA where the lack of mathematics education (and, perhaps, an irrational belief in luck) motivates many people to hand over their money to the state. That's why the mathematically inclined call the lottery "a tax on people who can't do math."There is, of course, an interesting up-side to short-term thinking, because the very same phenomenon might also be called "living in the moment." Some in the new age movement call it "the power of NOW." South Americans know all about the power of NOW, as you'll clearly see on a Sunday morning when driving your car down the road, weaving around drunken citizens sleeping in the ditches, sometimes still clutching an empty bottle of sugar cane alcohol. The night before, they all lived in "the now," you see, and they weren't necessarily thinking about the hangover implications that would inevitably arrive the next [sign in to see URL] see, to actually get anything done in society, you have to live at least a little bit in the [sign in to see URL] the food production front, by the way, it is extremely difficult to buy a John Deere tractor in many Central and South American nations. Much of the food production there is still done by hand (not as much in Brazil, of course, where agricultural mechanization is in full swing...).

Obviously, if one relocates to a 3rd world country full of naive ideas and baseless assumptions, you're an accident waiting to happen. The problem lies then with yourself and not with the potentials of relocation. Foolish attitudes towards authorities in general will of course get you in trouble, especially in situations in which society falls apart.
I would reply about this article's initial attitude about corruption [i.e. being worse in 3rd world countries] that the best organized disaster corruption, i.e. FEMA, will happen in the USA. Poor rural areas with commonly assumed limited resources are the safest place to be; where no one expects there to be riches to steal, no great effort will focus itself to raid said resources.
No one with naive ideas about authority will be ready to face the future, though they might SURVIVE the present...

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 2/14/2012, 5:27 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
12/22/2011, 2:03 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
why in God's name would you stay in your country?


As i point out ,offset=0#post1446]in this post on terrorism paranoia, your best bet for changing the world is to be safe from the fascist government you're subjected to right now.

The safest places in the world are the places where governments JUST DON'T BOTHER WITH!
Poor people are left alone. Oh, they're not doing well because governments don't offer them the knowledge and support they need to develop, while simultaneously sabotaging the development of healthy local economies through subsidies and such, but that's more about negligence as tactic than overbearance.

In Western countries the governments take maybe 75% of their citizens' income through various means [like by printing endless supplies of money that they themselves then spend] and that leaves them with basically limitless funds to harass the people with.
In 'poor' countries, however, governments simply don't have the money to spend on manpower and technology to use against the people; particularly if poor people outnumber the elite by large percentages.

The place to be TO BE FREE, therefore, is where there is no massive government THAT SUPPOSEDLY INSURES FREEDOM. It's ironic.
What about local thieves or criminal organisations?
Well, first of all, a government is BASICALLY simply the largest local maffia and their territory is called a country... They call the smaller maffia the 'bad guys' because THEY CAN.

Yes, there's corruption in 3rd World countries but do they steal 75% of your money?
All the time/constantly?

As a born-and-bred Westerner i was shocked when i ran into a roadblock in Turkey in 1987 and the police demanded some of the produce we had in the back of our car. I was outraged. But in later years i started thinking about how my own supposedly civilized government was STEALING 80% OF MY EARNINGS 24/7 [the tax system in Holland is pretty bad] and how that compares to countries where common folk pay little to no taxes and 'suffer' corruption.
Hell, at least the cops stealing money and confiscating sh!t at roadblocks are random and unorganized! The supposedly civilized government in my own country is so damned organized that there's hardly any getting around their confiscating 80% of all of my money.

Add to the above logic that studies show that the poorer the country the happier the people are, and one wonders why one would ever choose to stay in the so-called civilized countries.


I talk to people and they wish to make a difference in the country where they were born. Even people in the Netherlands (which is a tiny dot on the world map!) feel a responsibility to make a change from within, to not 'abandon' their roots.
This is just ego. There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world and the 17,000,000 people in Holland are NOT going to miss a stray Dutchman who chooses to live in some part of the [sign in to see URL]% that is the rest of the world...

But practically speaking, even if you wished to CHANGE THE WORLD, is it logical to do so from within a prison state?
And if you live in a rich Western nation, is it morally superior to help your rich countrymen as opposed to what you might have to offer people in 3rd World countries that the West has systematically been keeping poor?

Western, educated, particularly English-speaking people who collect suppressed knowledge off the internet and spread it to the world can make a hell of a bigger difference in 3rd World countries than they can in nations were 95% of the people are already online.
The knowledge i've collected here on this board could really turn the lives around of people where hardly anyone HAS internet to begin with, where they don't have the education to make full use of it if they do, and don't speak English well enough to search for the best options even if they are lucky enough to have had eductation plus the resources for a computer and internet connection.

The 3rd World is real. It's big. It's heavily populated. And it's waiting for you to enjoy...

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 2/8/2012, 1:03 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
2/8/2012, 12:59 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
an island


There's real proof that the sun has at times come up in the West instead of the East. People like ]Patrick Geryl think the Earth will stop spinning for 3 days and then start turning the other way around (again).

Therefore there are serious concerns about the planet stopping spinning when ]TEOMCROTE comes around, followed by mega tsunami's; for if the continents suddenly jerk to a halt, the oceans will carry on for a bit, sloshing over the shores/coastal regions everywhere. Tidal waves of immense height are then to be expected.

How far inland will a miles-high tidal wave reach? And with everything that comes with such a thing, like massive world-wide oil spills caused by all of the oil reserves situated along harbors that get crushed and pollute all of the area that the sea reaches. Patrick Geryl convincingly explains in his book ]How To Survive 2012 that the effects of a mega tsunami will be far worse than just the damage caused by immense volumes of salt water over land.
How far up does one go to flee? There's evidence that suggests that ALL cultures started at 1500 meters height; and even though ] people applying permaculture techniques have managed to grow just about everything that high up, this is not a viable option for many. How much land is there up there and who will end up playing king of the hill?

A tidal wave at sea is usually about just a meter high. The problem comes when the water hits the coastline and has nowhere else to go but up as the sea behind the first waves keeps pushing and pushing. When a tidal wave passes by an island, however, the water escapes to the left and the right of the land mass it strikes, giving the water other routes than up so that the height of the tidal wave hitting the island is much less than against a continent.

Another reason why an island offers a safer haven in case of a 2012 worst case scenario is that the tidal waves will also destroy just about all boats and ships, making it very hard indeed for anyone not already on an island to get to it. That means that masses of starving millions that survived the tsunamis, roaming the world for food and supplies, won't come knocking at your door.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 9/9/2014, 10:23 am


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
2/14/2012, 5:27 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
tsunami coastline on Gomera (and other places worldwide)


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--
in response a question from Chillin2012:

They mention the (mini)tsunami landslide theory in the above vid [ Nature: Mega Tsunami - Hawaii - The Tsunami Creator?] and i've been giving it much thought, actually. I perused the pdf's you sent and will be reading all of them soon but it's obvious that they're talking about the same thing that they mention above.
The thing is that i've SEEN Gomera; their theory might explain these fjordish cliffs that go maybe 100 or 200 meters inland, but on La Gomera they go as much as 10 miles inland.
 
So, actually, i've decided that they're RIGHT... except in order for them to BE right my tsunami coastline theory also has to be right. If they're right without the coastline idea, then how in god's name did debris that fell 10 miles inland ever get carried out to sea? And it did.
As all desperately clutching-at-straws scientists do, they mention that sealevels could've been much higher once, to explain away erosion at high altitudes. Pretty pathetic, but what else is new on the 'scientific' front?
 
It took me a while to figure out what the hell they even meant by their theory as they were being very short and vague [to be expected...] but then i got it.
I think in the end what's really happening is nothing more or less than what common sense suggested to me earlier and what looking at the Gomeran hills crumble suggests; in the last thousands of years, life on the surface has been eating away at the volcanic rock. If you walk in the forrests, especially, the rock just crumbles in your hands in many places as if it were cake. Very fertile soil, i thought. Now i'm thinking that when the mega tsunamis comes, they will wash all of that away, leaving a clean and probably hard layer of volcanic rock, having maybe taken away another meter of it back to the sea, as it likely does every 11,500 years.
The good thing about this is that we might be able to see deposits of any of the elemental metals lying near the surface after the tsunamis fall back into the sea.
Hopefully you get what i mean? The fact is that if the volcanic rock had been falling to pieces for millions of years as scientists suggest, there would be great hills of soft rock/soil instead of trenches. The truth is, however, that the barrancos bottom out in clearly defined edges all the way to the bottom. There are some hills of debris that can be explained by thousands of years of erosion but nothing that suggests millions of it. And then we're back to the house-sized 'pebble' i saw in the valley i was interested in previously; something very powerful indeed made that pebble, over aeons of time.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 3/6/2012, 11:52 am


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
2/14/2012, 5:30 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
abandoned locations


I was in the Gomeran National Park that covers the heights of the island for three and a half weeks in October 2011. I set up a tent in the national park [illegal] somewhere no one could see me.

It became clear to me that anyone could go and live there IF they were but to accept a few simple truths.
For one: keep a low profile. The only way anyone could ever find me up there would be by setting dogs on me. Now by actually living in a national park, you'd be challenging the authorities to no end IF THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. I think they'd ultimately utilize dogs to accomplish their goal of arresting anyone who so defied their authority.
Therefore, don't let anyone find out... i.e. lowprofile existence.

Another thing i experienced is how slow going it is in such a forrest. IF there were ever anyone coming near where i was staying, it would take them at least 10 minutes to get there once i heard them IF they were headed STRAIGHT FOR ME. That's 2 big IFs right there.
More likely is that IF anyone came near me that i'd have up to half an hour to get out.
Then the next aspect of that: if you know an area [like i obviously did after being there a while], you'll be able to get out fast and without being seen or heard.

All of this has given me new hope for ,offset=0#post1708]a new location in Morocco. If i can find a decent forresty area to set up camp, it's reasonable to assume that i'll be able to stay there undetected for as long as i like. That means that such a locale is free, safe, and full of potential.

The artificial [administrative] abandonement of national parks is real abandonement as long as you don't excite the authorities. Knowledge about ]the authoritarian trauma that Alice Miller explains should make it clear that no one is to be trusted; the majority of people suffer from it and those that don't are in contact with these that do (unaware of their condition). Low profile life, therefore, should be considered a prime directive in accomplishing such a setup. If you accomplish everything EXCEPT keeping what you've accomplished secret, you've accomplished NOTHING!

Having said that, keeping your endeavours a secret isn't difficult, i believe, as long as you take the necessary precautions. That CAN be a lot of work, yes, but it's all just part of the game.
When i was in Gomera i set myself up at 1200 meters where there was no water. I had to walk down a few hundred meters (took half an hour), get whatever i wished to haul on my back, and carry it BACK UP [i.e. it took longer to get back!]. That was the price i paid for setting up camp far from other people. Where there are no other people, you won't find too much water.
I will be seeking a locale in Morocco where there are forrest, water, caves, and solitude. I believe i've found the right area. As long as i stay to myself (as long as i'm at my location), it should be feasible.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 3/6/2012, 12:49 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
3/6/2012, 12:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
high lands & mountains


Civilization - Crash Course World History 201
An interesting historical argument to 'head for the hills' to find/create freedom/safety.

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--
There's every reason to assume the oceans may behave very hecticly and slosh all over the place if the planet changes directions and the sun starts coming up in the West from now on (again), as historic documents suggest was once the case. Patrick Geryl is one of the people who've done a lot of research that points to such a thing happening in 2012/2013, with the planet actually to stop turning for 3 days or so and then starting to turn again in the other direction. Either that or the planet flipping over and the north and south pole switching places, each of which, therefore, to be violent and quick occurances. In either scenario, if the planet suddenly stops or flips over, the lands and oceans will not all behave the same; lands may shift a bit but water will keep moving when the thick continents do not, thereby creating gigantic waves that slosh over shores as great destructive tsunamis.

Anyway, so many serious sources that take a pole shift into account say that we need to be anywhere from 700 to 3000 meters high, depending of course how far away from a coast one is.

Of course, as people like Patrick Geryl explain in detail [like in his book Surviving 2012], a tsunami is not just a splash of water and the effects of its destructive power must be taken into account, such as the fact that all (crude) oil reservoirs are situated along the coast and the liberated oil will pollute all coastal areas for a considerable amount of time after the tsunami has passed in a global oil disaster, as it were. Therefore it's important to remain above the level that any tsunami may reach, if for no other reason than the contamination and pollution that will be accompanied with it.

Obviously all of Europe is therefore forfeit if for no other reason than nuclear facilities that will suffer meltdowns when overrun by water or shaken apart by earth activity [earth quakes, volcanoes].
Africa has better options, either inland or in high places along the coast.
Australia hardly has any high country at all.
Asia, i dare say, is pointless to consider because of the insane amount of people already there that will be out to survive and must fight for resources and room.
The Americas have more room than Asia but Patrick Geryl suggests that the pole shift will mean that North America moves into the North Pole region, so only South America will be of any value at all.

In the end, therefore, only certain areas in Africa, central Asia, and South America seem valuable as safe high regions. One must, however, add the island of Papua (New Guinea, the second largest island in the world), for it is very high country, little population, warm and wet climate, and with no volcanic activity on the west side of the island ["Papua" or Irian Jaya]; it's also hard to reach, including inland, not much on the shorelines to pollute coatal areas after tsunamis hit, and since it's an island it's always possible to use the sea as a source of food; since it's also a region with much light [assuming it remains close to the equator] and rainfall, it's likely to become arable relatively soon after nuclear winter darkens the skies, all in all making it one of the safest and most desirable places on the planet to be in case of (and after) global destruction. (There are also clues to point at Papua being the point of origin of the so-called Aborigine, who traversed an ice bridge getting to Australia, thereby continuing their culture which goes back tens of thousands of years.)

Each of these regions should be considered from other aspects as well, but first things first, and then on to things like local population, climate (changes), nuclear threat, etc. etc.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
9/9/2014, 8:35 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
freedom


Rethinking Civilization
In this vid is explained (among other things) how people interested in freedom have always 'run for the hills' to avoid the cultural forces to be found in cities.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
8/11/2015, 8:17 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top