I don't think that the movie was proposing that the issue or solution is eugenics based. I would argue that educated people are probably able provide a better education, and that uneducated parents are less likely to be able to provide their children with a quality education.
I don't specifically remember Idiocracy really going into depth about "passing good genes".
“relatively modest” size of his collection, a judge has ruled.
Compared too?
It really reads like a pedo giving out a sick burn to another pedo.....your collection isn't even big enough to earn jail time. What is this amateur hour?
Berlin would disagree with you.
What? Are you referring to Berlin prior to the Nazi takeover? There were leftist and fascist having all out battles in the streets of Berlin for over a decade prior to the takeover. Which eventually happened because the centerist of the weimar republic decided not to fight back.
Waco should be all the history you need to know about to know what actually happens in the scenario you're encouraging.
You mean the event that led the federal government to be afraid of policing radical right winged politics for decades? The event that is often quoted as responsible to the free spread of right winged nationalism across America.....leading to the election of an ultra conservative president we tolerate today?
You have no idea what you are talking about, everything you said was wrong.
You really should educate yourself before trying to tell others what to think. Try reading the death of democracy by Benjamin Hett. It goes over the parralelles between the fall of weimar republic and our current situation.
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 think this depends on how you define "more emotional". Is expressing more aspects of emotion "more emotional" than the constantly pissed off dad screaming at the umpire at a little league game?
Imo women are better at expressing their emotions and communicating them to others, but men are just as emotional.
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.
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.
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.