I’d def agree with that before him wanting resources.

Idk, the gdp of Greenland is only 3b a year and it’s mostly from fishing. There’s really nothing the US could extract from Greenland that would be worth the cost of invading it. There’s some potential for mining, but you’d have to build an entire infrastructure to do it, and we don’t even want to invest in building infrastructure in the US.

Realistically the only thing that makes Greenland strategically important would be controlling the shipping lanes up north. However, the only strategically significant rival we have that utilizes those shopping lanes are Russia, whom the administration wants to buddy up too.

I think it’s just meat they throw out to the media anytime they want to distract from their failures, and of course our pathetic press just gobbles it up every time.

visited the foothills once

Again, projecting…

Yeah. That’s what i said. I didn’t say we would stay healthy, i said they couldn’t starve the people without going hungry themselves.

Lol, shifting the goal post …your original claim was that people in certain areas would be fine living off the land if the government theoretically cut off the food supply. You then shifted the argument to the government cannot shut off the food supply. You then went into some weird delusional fantasy that Californians would rise up and take down aircraft carriers with missiles.

Yeah they own stuff. But i buy my groceries from these peoples’ families, and they arent all cool with this.

Aren’t cool with isn’t the same as willing to indulge your weird ass fantasy land where they become freedom fighters.

Yes some people are willing to do violence to preserve their rights, but most people are just trying to live their lives and fly under the radar. Which is why history is filled with tragedy and injustice.

But you just kind of ignored everything i said so you could say something technically true and put it where a response to me would go.

What part did I ignore? You brought up incorrect facts about the CCP and the Black Panthers, which I addressed accurately.

I just think you like to speak before you think. We’re not in a romantic novel, life is hard and the good guys don’t always win. I’m not trying to discourage you, I’m just trying to temper your optimism with the reality of what happens to the vast majority of revolutionary forces.

Don’t get me started

You were the one who brought it up?

So i got you?

So you don’t know what projection is?

Look at a map. Talk to the people in all the places you’d have to go through. Maybe if they let this die down, and start it with something other than a police action. But if this goes hot? From fed cops? No. The sierra-nevadas may as well be in afghanistan.

I used to live in the Western foothills of the valley… it’s mostly empty rolling hills dude.

The logistics of getting food to stores is complex and it really wouldn’t take much but some instability to cause major food insecurity in the majority of the country.

True, it wont be universal. I’m even seeing people in OC upset about this though, and if the admin’s lost them, they’ve lost every major foothold with californians. Maybe downtown palo alto, for about five minutes. Maybe san diego, if they skew the demographics with a few aircraft carriers-but theres not much food between there, mexico, and the mountains.

I think you are overestimating the amount of people who would transition from being upset to taking up arms against the government. Most people barely pay attention to politics.

You don’t even know what a maoist ‘people’s war’ even is, and that’s likely the doctrine they’ll start with. You certainly don’t know who the panthers were, or the kinds of people they were. You don’t know what or where you’re talking about.

Lol, the CCP were fighting with much more than just small arms. They and the kmt were both supplied by the US and the Soviets against the Japanese.

You certainly don’t know who the panthers were, or the kinds of people they were. You don’t know what or where you’re talking about.

The Black Panthers never went to war with a military… Fred Hampton was murdered by regular cops with pistols shotguns and rifles.

Just because I don’t buy into your delusion that all of California is going to rise up and defeat aircraft carriers with som Glock and some semi auto rifles, doesn’t mean I don’t know about leftist revolutions.

Chuds can’t and wont do real work. Not in numbers, anyway.

Chuds already manage the farms and ranches in Cali.

Notoriously productive resilient and efficient with their military resources: Slave States!

Yes, because there’s no historical evidence of militant police states being able to feed themselves…

You play too many fucking map view strategy games. Go outside, maybe read a book. Or at least play the more complicated map games.

Lol, dude. You are projecting… You sound exactly like all the come and take it right winged chuds who thinks they’re going to turn into Rambo over night.

Unless they’re airlifting it all out. In which case it still has to fly over terrain that’s not to their advantage.

Why would they have to fly anything out of the valley? If the military is able to secure supply lines in war zones that have more than small arms resistance I don’t think it’s going to be a challenge to secure them in Cali.

we also make the missiles here.

Who’s we? It’s not like the entire country is going to support a rebellion, especially not anyone in the military industrial complex. Even if you have missiles, you don’t have the weapons platforms or even know how to operate them.

The best option for them would be the port of oakland. Theres lots of shitty tech bros there, but you still see tributes to the best and best dressed mlm’s to ever pick up a rifle, some of whom are, while far past fighting age, still kicking around a dense high tech city-and this would be for their food supply line, so it wouldn’t exactly be possible to starve them out.

What are you talking about? Why would food have to go to Oakland? You don’t ship food from California to the rest of the country on boats… Nor are some old dudes with small arms going to be able to do anything to military convoy.

The farms are all staffed by people who hate them. Every single one, not just here but especially here. Even the small/mid sized farmers-and i have talked to them-hate this shit, or are literally beibg chased out of the fields, literally as i type this. The logistics lines are disproportionately worked by those same people.

Work gangs, prison labour, political prisoners, hungry people willing to capitulate to feed their families…you know the same thing that has happened throughout history. Plus, there’s plenty of conservative chuds in the valley.

I’m not sure they could control the means of production here.

You don’t think a military force could control the supply line of some farmers? Most of which are already owned by large conglomerates that would gladly follow the orders of the government…

A lot of it is in and around areas that arent ideal terrain for fighting on their side.

Have you been to the central valley? It’s just large open fields and orchards surrounded by gentle rolling hills, it’s not the fucking korengal valley my dude.

There are areas and kinds of people who can live off the land, in one way or another. They do exist.

They can live off the land when the vast majority of the population isn’t trying to do the same. Hungry human populations are worse than locust, we can absolutely destroy entire ecologies in weeks.

the military really is in the same boat as the rest of us.

In the scenario they proposed the military would be controlling the means of food production. This isn’t something we have to guess about, there’s plenty of examples of intentional famines like what the Brits did to Bengal, and the Irish, or the Soviets in Ukraine, and unintentional like during China’s cultural revolution. During those famines the military didn’t starve, the common people did.

If those populations who were already subsistence farmers and hunters couldn’t “live off the land” then what makes you think anyone on lemy is going to do any better?

They can’t really do that in America, there’s too much land and room and food.

50% of the produce we consume is grown in the California central valley. The rest is grown in a few areas of the Great plains and in Florida.

Most of the food you see growing anywhere else isn’t for people, it’s for livestock.

For someone like me, if the food supplies were all cut off I could just live off of the land by hunting, fishing, and farming.

I think you are overestimating just how much food “the land” can provide. You need around an acre a person for subsistence farming, and that is assuming you live in a region that has a decent climate, that you have irrigation, and have access to modern fertilizer and pesticides.

As far as hunting and fishing goes… If a large sector of the population had to live off the land, the wildlife likely wouldn’t last a single season. The only reason we still have the wild animal populations we currently have is because there are strict regulations monitoring the amount of people who hunt and fish.

Early Americans were able to devastate a larger healthier ecology with a tiny fraction of our current population. Most of our country’s natural Forrest and woodland were already destroyed and artificially rehabilitated over a hundred years ago. We have very few old growth Forrest for us to actually live off of.

If it weren’t for petrochemical fertilizer the natural nitrogen cycle wouldn’t be enough to sustain our current population. Since the invention of the haber process in the 1930s we are all just a bad year away from food insecurity.

I’ve been arguing the same thing about organizing, except this is not the American revolution of the 1700s.

The civil rights movement was only 50 years ago and is a much better analog than conflating modern resistance movements with the 18th century.

Let’s be realistic about what happens next when you encourage people to take up arms and go on a suicide mission right now.

As I already stated, the general public should present themselves at most as publicly engaging in civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience does not get the job done by itself, not when the leader of the country is a fascist who doesn’t care about civility in the first place.

History has shown time and time again that the only thing that stops fascist is physical resistance. Fulfilling the demands of peaceful protesters needs to be juxtaposed as a compromise to avoid civil unrest, not the only form of resistance.

Fascist manufacture escalation, they don’t instigate it. Even if there were absolutely no violence happening, they would just see that as an invitation.

Threatening to withhold taxes is probably one of the smartest things any blue territory/jurisdiction can do to protect themselves and fight back right now.

Lol, that is a literal attack on the very idea of Federalism. This is more likely to escalate a violent response than a localized violent protest ever could. If there is any resistance to trump at the federal judicial level, then actually challenging the very idea of Federalism would legally validate a federal response more so than anything since the civil war.

We’ve dealt with violent protest in the past at the State level several times throughout history, no state has challenged the idea of federal power at that level since the rebellion.

A state withholding funding is fucking with the bag, it can be perceived as an act of rebellion and an attack on Congress who constitutionally governs the power of the purse.

We need America to unite against a coup being led by the Neoconfederates in the White House.

Fascist do not care about electorialism once they’ve seized the power of the pulpit. They only care about maintaining that power at whatever cost. The cat is out of the bag, the Reichstag is burning, civility is no longer on the menu.

These aren’t neo confederates, they are neonazi. If you don’t understand the difference, then you don’t know enough about politics to advise anyone.

I never claimed anyone is a modern day Malcom X. What I claimed is that the state cannot achieve a monopoly on violence. Like any monopoly, without competition or regulation there is no reason to self moderate.

We need to relearn how to organize a large number of peaceful protesters to have self constraint. But we also need to relearn how a small organized and isolated group of people who can compete with state sponsored aggression can reshape the political landscape.

You can’t have an MLK without a Malcom X. MLKs ways were only accepted because the alternative was the Black Panthers. Yes, we need the majority of people to be peacefully protesting, but we also cannot let the state achieve a monopoly on violence.