So what's the difference between a prepper and survivalist?

[founderant]

So what's the difference between a prepper and survivalist?

For me, a survivalist does not need stored supplies to survive and a prepper does.

[RudytheGreat]

Sounds good to me. I'm 70 and do not wish to live under a tree branch and eat snails. I am going to Bug In and eat my canned Spam, and I would shoot anyone who tries to take my Spam away. You can be shot eating snails or Spam, when the end comes, it comes.

[founderant]

Snails and spam, I think you might have something there.

[Anarchy]

Sounds good to me. I'm 70 and do not wish to live under a tree branch and eat snails. I am going to Bug In and eat my canned Spam, and I would shot anyone who tries to take my Spam away. You can be shot eating snails or Spam, when the end comes, it comes.

Ive eatten stuff that would make a pig puke SPAM sounds great if i go passing by i''ll have the Bread and Mustard dont shoot me Oooo by the way 70 is the new 40 dont cha know that....

[Tom Bergstrand]

From what I see on some forums survivalists are a bit more aggressive. One problem that I see with that is that they will have to go out and take food which necessitates leaving their AO. IMHO it is easier to defend than to assault. The German Army learned that at Stalingrad. They were subjected to the elements while the inhabitants sat in "somewhat" better conditions. When defending you have the benefit of knowing the terrain while they might not. We can sneak out in 2 or 3 man teams (flashback) and accomplish stuff that they are not expecting. We can store more than they can carry soooo after several days we sleep in shifts and eat while they are probably not so blessed. Anyone that has ever BTDT remembers that you sacrificed carrying food for carrying ammo. If you can capture food .... good. If you can't .... not good. After a couple of days the hunger definitely gets your attention. I would think that as a prepper I am planning to survive. Therefore a survivalist should also prep. Many on the internet don't seem to follow that logic. Time will tell.

[Blackthorn-USA]

The main difference I see is that it gives Preppers someone to feel superior too. Yeah yeah, hear me out. Before anyone had heard of a prepper there were survivalists who thought that being prepared for disaster whether it was nuclear war, government take over, NWO, EMP or whatever seemed to be a prudent course of action. Sure there were a few kooks just like there are a few kooks in prepper circles now. But the survivalists were seen as a threat because they had evil black scary guns, much like a lot of preppers do now… See a trend?

So in the 90’s the media did everything thing they could to associate survivalists with anything they thought the public deemed evil. Back in the good old days of the original ’94 gun ban, militias, domestic terrorism was brand new and the media was quite successful in demonizing the survivalists.

So years later the term prepper shows up as some kind of non-kooky, warm-fuzzy way to describe people who want to prepare for disaster by becoming more self reliant and stocking a few extra supplies. This was nice and politically correct for a little while until the media discovered that OMG preppers have guns too! And they’re hoarding food, why I’ll bet some of them even believe in God and homeschool their kids!

The difference between Preppers and Survivalists is about 20 years. That’s it. I hear preppers all to often talking about “well it's not like we're crazy survivalists”. Well the media is coming for you preppers now. I think the sooner everyone understands that we all are preparing to survive and stop buying the social warfare line that somehow one group is superior to the other the better off we’ll all be.

Regardless of what we call ourselves, the media will demonize us and the general public will fear us. How about we agree that intelligent, self-reliant people prepare to survive regardless of what they may be called and concentrate on working together?

IMHO, YMMV,ETC

[TimWhite]

The main difference I see is that it gives Preppers someone to feel superior too. Yeah yeah, hear me out. Before anyone had heard of a prepper there were survivalists who thought that being prepared for disaster whether it was nuclear war, government take over, NWO, EMP or whatever seemed to be a prudent course of action. Sure there were a few kooks just like there are a few kooks in prepper circles now. But the survivalists were seen as a threat because they had evil black scary guns, much like a lot of preppers do now… See a trend?

So in the 90’s the media did everything thing they could to associate survivalists with anything they thought the public deemed evil. Back in the good old days of the original ’94 gun ban, militias, domestic terrorism was brand new and the media was quite successful in demonizing the survivalists.

So years later the term prepper shows up as some kind of non-kooky, warm-fuzzy way to describe people who want to prepare for disaster by becoming more self reliant and stocking a few extra supplies. This was nice and politically correct for a little while until the media discovered that OMG preppers have guns too! And they’re hoarding food, why I’ll bet some of them even believe in God and homeschool their kids!

The difference between Preppers and Survivalists is about 20 years. That’s it. I hear preppers all to often talking about “well it's not like we're crazy survivalists”. Well the media is coming for you preppers now. I think the sooner everyone understands that we all are preparing to survive and stop buying the social warfare line that somehow one group is superior to the other the better off we’ll all be.

Regardless of what we call ourselves, the media will demonize us and the general public will fear us. How about we agree that intelligent, self-reliant people prepare to survive regardless of what they may be called and concentrate on working together?

IMHO, YMMV,ETC

I haven't decided if I'm a survialrepper or a prepurlist

[sageprice]

Those who do not prep normally die. Therefore, if you prep you are a survivalist.

[Colombo]

So what's the difference between a prepper and survivalist?

For me, a survivalist does not need stored supplies to survive and a prepper does.

No way I can let that kind of obama style divisive statement slide.

Long before there were "preppers" survivalists were doing some of the hard work with a new concept, thinking about and preparing as well as catching hell from the masses who just 15 years earlier thought fallout shelters and civil defense were cool. From what I've seen the percentage of survivalist who actually have tried out the ideas were much higher than the percentages of preppers of whom more than a few smell like fair weather keyboard commandos. Military manuals and government publications mail ordered and waited for were read, tried and talked about (my first order included a book on beekeeping). We went out and "camped" in winter in upstate NY. We learned land nav. We built fires and shelters, bunkers, collected intel, some worked out religiously, trained in armed and unarmed (a lot of us were expecting commies after the nukes)...
...and yes we shot the hell out of our weapons and were considered odd. Regroup, rebuild, revenge, the three Rs.

From what I see on some forums survivalists are a bit more aggressive. One problem that I see with that is that they will have to go out and take food which necessitates leaving their AO. IMHO it is easier to defend than to assault. The German Army learned that at Stalingrad.

Like your post, a couple of points though...
That some idiots out there are calling themselves survivalist AND considering theft because they don't stock food doesn't make it so. I know what old civil defense crackers, hard candy, and c-rats as well as spam and other canned goods taste like, some heated on an old coleman stove thanks to old style real surplus stores. As for the thought that defending is easier, be very careful with thinking like that and look to expand your knowledge base (this is a friendly suggestion not an attack) tactical and strategic are very different animals. Honest men have to work for a living, they don't always get to choose the place or time. In a bad situation attrition is a powerful ally and a devastating enemy.

[founderant]

What's divisive about my statement? When I think of a survivalist, I think of someone that can walk into the woods with nothing and survive. Most preppers can not do that in my opinion. If they can, then they are a survivalist. Just my opinion, it is not meant to divide, but there is a difference.

[contrarian]

Back in the day I claimed the label survivalist and I never had any desire to live in the woods. I did, and do, have a desire to survive; a drive to survive even. Nothing has changed but the label.

[Colombo]

What's divisive about my statement? When I think of a survivalist, I think of someone that can walk into the woods with nothing and survive. Most preppers can not do that in my opinion. If they can, then they are a survivalist. Just my opinion, it is not meant to divide, but there is a difference.

Simple, the skill sets needed are so closely related they should completely cross over. Limit or focus on just survival or just prepping as you've defined them and you reduce your capacity to respond and quite possibly live thru what at best is unpredictable.
Additionally your making possible targets out of allies who will be picked off by those who would like nothing better than a repeat of the ignorance and smug superiority shown by many gun owners when they let the hughes amendment get tacked onto the McClure-Volkmer act without a whimper. I remember nra leaders and members stating that nobody needs that kind of weapon. Want a simpler and yet more extreme example that started with two totally unrelated groups like law abiding citizens and drug dealers? How well has letting law enforcement and the government cut away at the bill of rights worked for us? I remember the arguments that loosening search and seizure laws would only be used against drug dealers, been thru an airport security check lately? Now add government suspected/possible terrorist to the mix and consider where that may lead. Any weakness will be exploited.

Identify and draw distinctions within a small community and your showing our weak points to those who will subdue us and gaining nothing in the process but possible resentment down the road from some in our very own community, the point at which we need as many friends as possible.

[Lynda]

Those who do not prep normally die. Therefore, if you prep you are a survivalist.

That works for me.

[theoutback]

What's divisive about my statement? When I think of a survivalist, I think of someone that can walk into the woods with nothing and survive. Most preppers can not do that in my opinion. If they can, then they are a survivalist. Just my opinion, it is not meant to divide, but there is a difference.

Perfectly fine statement imo.

[Das Sheep]

Most survivalists still use supplies, and few could last an entire year with no stored food and no planted food.

Even when you go a bushcrafting you still typically bring some food, even if its just to supplement what you normally catch and kill, or find.

I think its the bullets to beans ratio that makes a prepper or survivalist.