Urban Survival: Institutions May Not Tell You Always The Truth

Get in touch with the author clicking here
Pablo Edronkin

Suggested Readings

Survival Tips For Economic Disasters

Some Stories Of Bootleggers, Smugglers And Entrepreneurs Of The Black Market

All The Stories Of Adventurers And Travellers

The Black Market

Would It Be Right To Disarm Civilians?

A possibility that should not be overlooked in the framework of study of urban survival: Governments may turn against their own people

The Story of Things

Related Products And Services

Cosmic Cat - A cosmic, free game

Free American Roulette

Free European Roulette

3 Card Poker Gold, Free

Free Blackjack

Green Energy

Free games

Sports info and betting

Independent funding for a free lifestyle

Adventure Gear and Provisions

Survival Gear and Equipment

If we remember cases like those of ENRON or Mr. Maddoff, and if we think that both private and public institutions should have audited their activities and accounting books, it becomes immediately apparent that government and non government institutions may not tell the truth when it is not in their interest; there is no need to believe in any conspiracy theory because proof is there.

That doesn't mean that institutions never say the truth, but they might not do so when it goes against their interest. Credibility is a relative thing and the main factors that affect its quality are:




If your personal survival depends on believing or not your government or any other institution, consider these factors. If they can influence the decision making process of those organisations or if they have any reason to fear, if there is money at stake or a loss or gain of power, you should act with prudence and essentially not believe what they say. Don't give the organisation or its leaders the benefit of doubt. Doing so in many different circumstances has been in the past the way in which for example, tax revenue or police officers attained the powers equal to those of a secret police force, and these organisations thus became tools for political leaders to persuade and extort citizens; in this case, a power gain gets in between the truth and public declarations. Tobacco companies knew that cigarettes caused cancer years before they officially recognised the fact; in this case, money was the obstacle. It is easy to find many other examples.

Reasons for not acting truthfully can, indeed, be combined or mixed: Allied leaders knew as early as 1942 that the Nazis were exterminating Jews, and they also knew the nature and location of places like Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Matthausen and many other concentration and extermination camps - over 200 all across occupied Europe -, and what's more: save some exceptions, they could have easily sent a bombing raid over them. But those leaders in fact did nothing to save people there in order to take the best possible advantage of their military resources. It was far more sensible from the strategic point of view to bomb factories and other installations that would have a far bigger impact on the German economy and military capability than destroying those factories of death. Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill acted based on the factors of power and money, interpreted as war resources, to act as they did.

This means that lies told by an organisation may pursue noble or useful ends, and goals, but for the individual survivor, that may be of no use at all.

Quick Search


Related Web Pages

Andinia's Forum

Reprint and linking guidelines


Articles Directory Shop Forum

Outdoor sports, adventure, nature and exploration at Andinia.com