I would take yet a third tack. The crisis is real and we face the issue of survival. But survival can't be dealt with other than confronting the problem of a hostile gov't (at least the top-most levels). That's where any form of individual (or small-collective) survivalism breaks down. If nothing else, the gov't will come after you, tax you, dispossess you (or worse). (I'm not a libertarian, there can be legitimate taxation.) The worst case is that angry and hungry sections of the populace are incited to turn against each other -- survivalists take up guns against the "starving hordes".

I hate politics. But there is no other route to survival. We need a gov't that faces up to the realities we confront. Ultimately, if we want to survive, we have to get political and create a political force that points to the reality we all face and begins to help us addressing the issues in collective, cooperative and peaceble ways.

I admire Mike Ruppert and his early linking of PO and 9-11. But I never agreed with his survivalist bent. And he's not alone in that. A lot of TODders are survivalists. The ones that aren't tend to underestimate how hostile the gov't is to its people, and therefore think things can be handled (with however much difficulty) within the existing framework.

My daughter lives on commune/farm and I love visiting her, partly to let my imagination run free in seeing what's possible. But their way of living, despite being potentially within reach of self-sufficiency on several fronts, nevertheless is also endangered.

My comment you cited had to do with my managing my Family Trust investment portfolio; I guess I didn't make the connection explicit enough. You are of course correct that many operate outside of the established system; I figured people here knew me well enough through my writings to know that I would certainly be aware of such.