I was fascinated by the first hand account by Selco, a man who lived through a SHTF scenario during the Bosnia collapse in 1992. He described what it was like to live for a year in a city with no infrastructure: no running water or sewer, trash pickup, no electricity; no food available, currency was useless, and no rule of law.
... I asked him if he would mind answering questions that I had always wondered about. I sent him a list of questions and he graciously responded. I posted the responses “as is.”
… A lot of [people in a crisis situation] decide to stay in their homes and this has raised a lot of discussions on the pros and cons of staying in the city. Some people say that by staying in the city, the infrastructure will be restored first, and that those living in the countryside would be attacked by roving bandits.
The other side states that those living in the countryside have greater chances of survival as they would be more self-reliant and not dependent on resources from the city. Based on you and your family’s experience, which would you prefer and why?
Read full article...
More on the "End of America":
Powerful Op-Ed: The U.S. government has gone rogue
Porter Stansberry's crisis update: This is what will happen next
This is the No. 1 threat to the safety and security of most Americans