offensive farmers

OFFENSIVE FARMERS
To begin today, I would like to send you over to http://thesurvivalistblog.blogspot.com/ . You all know Creekmore. He's been growing in readership and revenue while I am shrinking even further into my niche market. I'm at peace with this as I'm definitely not a mainstream author. So, the best of luck to him growing. I mention him because his articles are growing in length and whit and seem to be much more enjoyable. I'm not criticizing, just saying to take another look if you've been away because things are just getting better. Or, you can stay a loyal minion and continue to put up with my growing sarcasm and soul drenching fear and paranoia. Because, trust me, it's just going to get worse. My sunny optimistic days are long over. But you are all welcome along for the ride. Another note, the recent BS about banks paying back TARP is all sunshine up our butts. Dollars to donuts it was the PPP buying their stock that allowed them to pay off the loans. Buying time, no real solution.
*
Okay, you all seem to think I hate farming and wish all of you to die from waves of urban refugees as I look on at a safe distance out in the middle of no where. I don't think farming is unrealistic, I think that future farmers are unrealistic about the dangers they face. Everyone seems to have this Yeoman farmer fantasy where you will be free to grow a crop in peace. Except for native attacks, three hundred years of farming on this continent were basically hassle free. I'm not discounting the hardships endured, but compared to peasant farming in every other landmass, our farmers had a lot of freedom and could pick from fabulous land. Look at the Russians. They fled east to avoid taxation and exploitation. To be free they had to fight off nomad warriors. And the Russian government fed off of their labor, moving in behind them once the hard part was done. Then they became enslaved again. In contrast, our immigrants were given land for free and soon had a railroad following them to take the food to market.
*
Our farmers have also benefited from the large spaces we've settled. In general, the larger an area that there is to police, the easier it is avoid intrusive government. Space is a buffer. The future is going to see a contraction of space. As our Empire falls apart and disintegrates, smaller political units will take its place. City states, baronies, small territories of all kinds. As states shrink, the ability to hide is hindered. The government can find you easier. Just because you are hidden and remote now doesn't mean you will escape the taxing authorities in the future. There will be less people to exploit and they will actively seek out to the last landowner the means of parasitism. Another thing to consider is that once petroleum inputs into the soil shrink or cease altogether, crop yields will shrink. Thus, taxation becomes harder to bear. These reasons are why I tell you you will become a farming serf, not a Yeoman free holder. Survivalists are a little more realistic than the self-reliant types, in that they seriously arm themselves and expect trouble. I'd wager that all of Backwoodshome Magazine readers think the federal government will always be around to protect them so they can farm their asparagus in peace. But I also think survivalist-farmers discount the power of the state to exploit them.
*
It is one thing to fight off the attack of zombie mutant bikers. It is quite another to fight off a local government intent on taxing you. My fiction Bisonia was meant to portray the ability of a military using black powder weapons to defeat fixed defenses, but I will be the first to admit I don't think I have the skill to impart the planned lesson. A group with the resources to manufacture black powder and feed soldiers can bomb your ass into submission. All the .308 caliber weapons you have will matter little. So, what is the solution? Going on the offensive. Defense will not work. You must seek out the enemy first. Usually, being on the farm means you can only react rather than be proactive. But, because I care about my loyal minions and I know most of you belong to the broccoli brigade, and also because I like to pretend I'm really smart, I've worked out a probable solution.
*
Farming is hard labor. You need to put in a lot of time and energy. So, how can you both farm and fight? Not easily. History has shown the majority of arrangements centered around both a permanent farming and soldier class. Not a combination of the two other than as part time supplementation. You can't risk your farmers in battle because if too many of them die then who feeds everybody? If you keep your soldiers farming, who defends you? If you call up your farmers on the off season, you have to win the war before planting or harvesting. I think the best solution is for the seasonal farmer. Mainly because it avoids a parasitic military and government and allows more freedom. Your farmers become citizens rather than serfs because they are armed. But you can't have a six month army. You need a year round one. Luckily, with today's techniques of farming it is a lot easier than it used to be to be away from the fields. French intensive deep bed planting doesn't yield anymore crops necessarily from the same labor ( just more from less land ) but I think it might be the answer for less efficient labor.
*
If the need for deep soil turning and fertilization is a once a year, short time activity, then males are only needed on the farm a short time. The rest of the time females, small children and geriatrics should be able to grow all the food. This is not a perfect solution. There are stalls to muck and other hard labor requirements. And it is not a great idea to entrust females with too much high caloric labor. If a female needs to burn too much fat in work, it endangers her reproductive ability. The reason fat, plump types used to be more attractive was because not only was adequate food intake a sign of wealth, it also meant fetus growth, labor and nursing were all less dangerous. So, if adequate food supplies can be produced with minimal male effort and minimal female hard labor by using organic intensive farming, it will free up men for the military. Once free, they can aggressively expand outward to defeat any potential enemy before they can attack. And you are doing so without a parasitic government. More of a libertarian solution to defense. Each man arms and feeds himself. The military service might be mandatory, but it doesn't benefit a parasitic state. As a benefit to females, this arrangement will ensure your continued liberation rather than re-enslavement. If females produce food they are less likely to become second class citizens.
*
So, what do you think? Is it a feasible idea, or am I full of crap, again? Speaking of crap, buy mine at www.bisonpress.com