Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

With the coming collapse, and likely invasion by a foreign force, what language(s) should we be learning?

2550 Views 44 Replies 22 Participants Last post by  Kauboy
If you've not seen it yet, there have been multiple moves over the past few years that will lead to a direct softening of our military.
When combined with the controlled collapse of our economy, this spells certain disaster with respect to a pending invasion being resisted.
China already has plans, leaked from a defector, for how to storm our west coast and work inward from there. Their plan includes concealing troops and equipment in shipping containers on normal trade vessels. They'll have all major west coast docks under control within the first day.
Russia would be an obvious ally to them in this effort.
All of South America has produced a slow invasion over the past decade or two.

Back in college, it was assumed that Japan would become the world leader in business, and it would be pertinent to learn a bit of Japanese to stay competitive.
I went only as far as to buy an English to Japanese dictionary, and that was about it. Turned out that trend wasn't as prophetic as had been proposed...
But what do we expect the next leading language of the new world order will be when the US finally falls?
If you live, what should you learn to speak to get along in the new normal?

I'm reminded of the short-lived TV series "Firefly". In that world, a new language had emerged which meshed English and Mandarin, due to China's influence back on Earth and being the other superpower along with the US that came together to get humanity off of the dying planet and into the stars.
1 - 3 of 45 Posts
To answer your question: likely Spanish (easiest for native English speakers to learn, widely spoken) and your pick of Russian or Mandarin. Spanish will be most likely used in your everyday life stateside while one of the latter two are widely spoken abroad.

However, I'd like to challenge you on your notion that an invasion of mainland America (or American territories, for that matter) is likely within the foreseeable future. Our closest military peers, China and Russia, are very unlikely to take such a drastic action as starting the third world war right now. Russia is currently being thoroughly embarrassed in Ukraine, which had a relatively weak military that the US is currently using as a proxy to keep the EU's current geographic advantage. If the US is capable of turning motivated farmers currently under threat of losing their nation into a force capable of fighting off a world superpower, what do you think it would be capable of turning the average American in to under the threat of losing their home, livelihood, and rights? I agree the modern US military has lost much of its warfighting spirit - but that's only because we've entered an era of warfare where it isn't needed anywhere other than the frontline, which is historically not on American soil. I'm young, and most of my generation hates overseas wars, but myself and most of my peers would not hesitate to fight a war on American soil against an invading force. It's not difficult to motivate people to fight to win when the alternative is losing their nation - even if it's ideologically divided.

With regards to China, they're hesitant to even invade Taiwan at the moment; why would anyone think they would skip over that and jump straight to an invasion of mainland America? From a purely logistical standpoint, China lacks the sealift capabilities to pull of an invasion of Taiwan, and they certainly lack the logistical capabilities to transport enough troops and equipment to fight the full American MIC on its home turf on a winning timeframe. Chinese forces would have to contend not only with local citizen militias (no doubt newly equipped with gucci rifles, optics, indirect fire and anti-armor capabilities) but also the professional military that would strategically pick its fights. This exact scenario has no doubt been wargamed for literally centuries: every possible invasion route, style, at strategy has likely been predicted and planned for. Any force invading the US would be walking into a slaughter.

Keep in mind that this entire discussion completely neglects the role of nuclear weapons as deterrents. In fact, Russia and China's approach to this topic shows that they are not keen on invading anytime soon; their development of hypersonic missiles to evade US defenses is a show of weakness rather than strength. Why focus on nuclear options that will kill everyone on the planet, thus gaining you nothing from victory, if you could win a ground war with the US?

No doubt nearly every hostile nation to the US has wargames drawn up for hypothetical invasions of mainland USA. But the reality of such an invasion would be so lethal that one should severely doubt whether even a schizophrenic on LSD would entertain the idea.
See less See more
What makes you believe the younger, combat aged generation is willing to fight? ... 10 or 25 years from now, the population is going to be more offended, more canceling and, less willing to fight for rights they are happy to surrender now.
Because I happen to be a member of that generation, and as such have spent the vast majority of my time getting to know my peers. What you need to understand about Gen Z is that it is by far the most polarized generation we have seen. There are very vocal leftists - and I won't deny there are many of them - but there is an equal amount of people on the opposite side of the aisle that simply keep quiet and find discreet circles of their own to avoid getting canceled by peers. Put yourself in our shoes: you have no money, lots of educational debt, and few jobs that pay well enough to keep your head above water. Employers and educational intuitions you need to attend are highly political. Would you risk homelessness and starvation just to vocally disagree with a woke company or college that would otherwise pay you enough to live or train you to make more? No, I don't think you nor anyone else would, at least if you were smart enough to find like-minded individuals discreetly.

Both the lefty and righty Zoomers are itching for a fight meaningful to them; that's why you see such vocal leftism on Twitter and militant rightists on 4chan/iFunny. It just so happens that fighting middle eastern farmers isn't very meaningful to Zoomers that were barely alive for 9/11.

As for turning over their rights - yes, they are. But not necessarily at their own fault. Propaganda from all sides has become so advanced and complete in the Unites States that it's almost impossible to make sense of current events without being taken for a ride by the establishment.

Well if they invaded it would likely be a clandestine operation training Native Agents to act as guerrilla forces prior to the Red Dawn Scenario many would envision.
That's certainly a risk, but such a feat would be much more difficult for a foreign nation than it likely would be for the US to pull off on them. Consider China: they're facing a much more dire financial crisis than the US is, and the people there are feeling the squeeze. If the US could do so without tanking their own markets, now would certainly be a good time to stoke the cultural retentate of the "Mandate of Heaven." My point being, the US is not the only nation with large divides running through it at the moment.

Russia actually tried the strategy you described in Ukraine - it's all but fact now that the Ukrainian separatists were being propped up by the Russian military prior to the Russian invasion. Even with an active civil war occurring, Russia has still failed miserably. I am highly skeptical of such a strategy working in a much less disadvantaged nation like the US.

I don't see either one wanting to fight a land war or, even able to do so effectively. But, a modern war will be more technology based and less human ability to wage war.
You're absolutely correct. If the US ever tried to engage Russia or China in conventional warfare, either of those nations would almost certainly have to resort to nuclear strikes, hence their aggressive development of hypersonic missiles as deterrents. I say this because the US military, despite its current flaws, is still objectively the best in the world. It is the only superpower to have cut its teeth in real-world conflict and refine its doctrine in the context of modern technology. Russia lacking this experience, coupled with its large corruption issues, is demonstrating just how much more capable the US would be in a conflict.
See less See more
pampering to colleges was a liberal lie to indoctrinate your generation through the educational system.
You are completely correct here. Specifically, the move was made around the 70's where leftist professors began to accuse the prior generation of more conservative academics of limiting their academic freedom. Nowadays, we see the complete leftist cycle of going from accusing the opposition of doing one thing, only to do it themselves to a much greater extent.

I went to trade school, studied Collision Repair/Auto Body and can get a job for far cheaper a cost in education then you get in college, unless you're going to be a doctor or lawyer... I was taught to think critically and I found away to avoid the mistakes you're making. I have a different values system then you, I favor results, planning and, being goal focused.
I'm glad you brought this point up, because I believe it highlights the crux of the matter. I am currently applying to medical schools. Becoming a physician has been my goal since my freshman year of high school, and as far back as then I was aware of the massive risk associated with taking out student loans. But I had a dream and I was willing to gamble on my academic abilities to reach it. The problem is that both of these fields, medicine and law (to a lesser extent), are downstream from academia. That is, they subscribe heavily to the same politics. So, if you bet $100,000 that you would get a 520 MCAT, a 4.0 GPA, and enough patient care experience to make the cut, but didn't factor in that you would have to conform to leftist ideology to a religious extent, you may very well be out that money if you can't pivot and keep up the act. When it comes to admissions to professional schools, it's even worse. They all but openly discriminate against Asians and Whites. So, simply being the wrong race or sex reduces your chances of admission even further from the ~35% that get in.

If it's this bad for the professional fields, where saying the wrong political opinion can ruin 4+ years of work, how do you think it is for other career paths stemming from academia? They have the same issue, but coupled with lower wages and even fewer translational skills.

My only point with this line of reasoning is that many students, even those on the top tier, cannot affect change within the current academic system - they can only out themselves, ruin their career, just to be replaced by one of the thousands of other Zoomers lined up to take their spot. Believe me, you'd be hard pressed to find a larger critic of my generation than me. I am frustrated with myself and my peers for falling for our parents' and high school's lies of college being necessary for a good job and societal acceptance. I'm simply trying to outline why students have no incentive to oppose the system once they're locked in, even if the academic culture is stacked against them and degrades them. In any case, I have the experience, skills, and academic capability to make a six-figure salary even if I don't get in to medical school. But I stand absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from publicly stating my politics, whereas I can simply vote in private.

Real change with have to be realized from the outside, and I do see that coming in the future since the culture is shifting rightward. A lot of my generation is very vocal (and very extreme) online, they just don't get associated with those posts since they try their best to stay anonymous. I would bet around 50% of /pol/ are Zoomers.

only difference is someone else is pushing the BS and, the puppeteers pulling strings (who been in the Senate and Congress for 30+ years) are even older then me. The difference is you've been so comfortable and, so handicapped by the ease of life in America that your generation is distracted by all the Digital BS. You've grown up with the internet, I did to but I gave less focus to it.
I disagree with regards to propaganda. I would encourage you to read Jacques Ellul's work Propaganda, and given your willingness to engage in long-form debate, I think you'd enjoy it. The best way to view propaganda is as a sociological phenomenon rather than just a purely psychological one. That is, a piece of propaganda is not immediately focused on convincing you of something, but rather seeks to alter social structures in specific ways. Perhaps the most overt example is that of democratic anti-gun propaganda. The goal is clear: disarming the population as a means of further centralizing power. They do this with scare tactics, not targeted at the individual, but at a person's social group. For example, democrats don't say "we need to abolish the second amendment because you may be shot," they say "we need to abolish the second amendment because your child may be shot." Furthermore, how a person responds to this is not independent of others' opinions. When you hear this message, you either consciously or subconsciously consider how those around you would react to you disagreeing. This is why anti-gun propaganda is so effective in liberal areas: to disagree appears or feels to be in favor of gun violence to people unfamiliar with firearms or crime statistics. This pushes someone who would normally be pro-gun to appear (or vote, which is the ultimate goal of such propaganda) anti-gun for fear of social rejection.

What I mean by propaganda being "complete" is that there has been a fundamental change in its dissemination. Technology pervades every aspect of life. No matter what you are doing, there is a method for someone to influence you to do or think something, and you can be certain they are. TikTok is a great example. Nearly everyone in my generation has it (I do not), and it is almost explicitly a method of spreading Chinese propaganda. The difference is that China sets the terms for what becomes popular (sociological) while their enemies (the US) make and consume that content. There's a reason mental illness and general degeneracy are boosted on US servers, but engineering projects and nationalist themes are booted on Chinese servers. Keep in mind this is one of the less subtle means of modern propaganda; now contextualize that in terms of the entire modern system, and you'll see just how deep the manipulation can be.

Certainly, the people in charge have been in congress for decades. But their campaigners haven't, and you can be certain every corporation or politician has a full staff of propagandists (likely going by a better sounding name) fervently researching how to best agitate the population to do things that benefit them using very complex means.

And Russia has tried it in the US, Japan tried it during WWII, look it will happen because everyone uses it. We are feeling it now but, if you remain silent... its your fault. Your freedom of speech is your right (duty) to speak up. If you don't speak up, don't blame me because I see the silence as acceptance of suicidal and self-defeating political agenda.
My discussion of Chinese foreign propaganda translates nicely here. I certainly agree with your sentiment - there is a duty in free speech, but that duty entails responsibility in our approach to using it. While I am not accusing you of trying to manipulate anyone, the statement "if you remain silent, it's your fault" is one of the oldest forms of agitation propaganda known to man. The left uses it too, see the "silence is violence" trend from 2020. It's a false dichotomy - I can be silent in real life, but very vocal anonymously online, as many people are. The goal of such statements is only to draw everything out in the open, to divide people (artificially, mind you) into different camps, and to facilitate further manipulation once individuals have become a mass.

The duty of free speech is to use it to find the optimum solutions to problems, but that can't be done by agitating people to join an unthinking crowd. That is poor strategy that will ultimately allow power-seeking individuals to prey upon your ideals to get what they want. Do it if you desire, it is your right, but it's not going to get you what you think it will.

Free speech is also for leisurely shitposting :)
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 3 of 45 Posts