It is never easy when a member of your group ends up being an untrustworthy individual. In today’s society, groups of individuals form mutual assistance groups with a vow to come together in emergency times. Everyone involved in one of these groups needs to do their due diligence on the other members. Uncover as much as possible about someone before you let them know any information that isn’t open source. Preppers tend to stay quiet, so this exchange of data can be difficult.

During a disaster, you may welcome guests to your home. If the situation were to evolve into a long-term survival scenario, you would now have to share your resources and get along with your guest. The question arises, what if the relationship went south? If you tell them to leave or they leave on their own, what do they know about your supplies and defenses? Who could they potentially inform? Would it mean future problems for your group?

An excellent way to start with the vetting process is to inquire if they have their concealed carry permit. If they do, the federal government has already vetted them. Check out their social media profiles. You can learn a lot about someone there.

You need to be alert to everyone. Unfortunately, a lot of sexual assault cases are people that the victim knows closely. The stress is going to test everyone in a long term emergency. When multiple families come together, any number of disagreements are going to transpire. When you add in marriage dynamics into that equation, the groups will experience some significant stress.

What if you have a criminal in the mix? If you are struggling to feed the group, how much of your resources will you give to them? If you kick them out, they are a wild card. That’s why you have to do an area assessment to know who and what is in your surrounding area. They could join an opposing group or be shunned by your allies as well.

The question also arises, what would you do with someone who lost their mental capacity? Some people have no problem saying they would kill the individual. I question the reality of that answer. If a death penalty is chosen, it better be a group decision. If you have one leader, choosing if someone gets to live or die, you may now have an authoritarian dictatorship. It would be best if you discussed these factors when the group forms. The other issue is, if you are willing to put a bullet in someone’s head, you better be ready to have a bullet put in your head.

When it comes to long term survival situations, you better know your core values and stick to them. You can remain brave, dignified, and unselfish, or you can turn into an animal. If there were a significant catastrophe, could you survive with just you and yours? No! You better be ready for more.

What you do is going to have ramifications on the group and you as an individual. Developing rules ahead of time helps the group handle unforeseen problems in an agreed-upon method. If the group is strong enough, they can keep the leaders in check or leave together. When you are starting group meetings, don’t just focus on learning skills. Focus on scenarios the group may have to face. Have a stranger role-play the scenarios so that the group dynamics are revealed.

You will have to handle each situation case by case. Thankfully, our laws still exist, and we haven’t reached a disaster large enough to negate those laws. Remember that if you don’t like how the group is acting, you can always leave the group. Brian suggested following the “Moscow rules”: assume nothing, never go against your gut, everyone is potentially under opposition control, don’t look back, you’re never alone, and go with the flow and blend it. Also, keep in mind that the individual may not be corrupt themselves, but they may be compromised.

​

​

​

​

​

​