Ok, so I have to call BS on this article. It had me until it started talking about farmers withholding their crops and effectively “starving” urban areas thus leading us to a Pol Pot/Cambodian style dystopia. It is a false equivalency that is completely nonsensical and here’s why:
1) The sheer economics of rural areas doing that will actually gut them more than anyone else. They will be foreclosed on as they won’t have any money to pay their bills;
2) Let’s assume they don’t care about point 1: as they fail to pay their bills, (because they don’t have the money that they would earn by selling their crops) no one will sell them anything. They won’t have fuel to power their cars, trucks and tractors (or bunkers for that matter). They won’t be able to pay for water/sewer, health, medicine, food (after all, most of them grow corn and not all staples of food) or even electricity. They will be excoriated by society and amputated from the grid. As winter arrives, they won’t have heat, water, or any means to properly feed themselves, protect their crops, fertilize them etc. They will implode and will die out a LOT faster than the urban areas.
3) Let’s assume that they don’t care about either point 1 or 2 above: if they intend to “starve” the urban areas, they will only hurt themselves in the sense that the urban areas will import more from the very nations on which they are hoping Trump will clamp down. Yes, the article addresses this in the sense that it discusses the resultant inflationary forces, but it does not do enough to delineate that the overall national demand would also drop as they extricate themselves from the market. So, while there would be an upward shift in the demand curve, resulting in demand pull inflation, this would be mitigated by the fact that they would no longer be participating in overall economic supply. Additionally, this very superficial statement fails to address the fact that a large amount of our food is already imported. The urban areas would import more to ameliorate any catastrophic starvation. In the need to import more, the borders would be opened so as to allow free trade and prevent any costs to the consumer and limit dead weight loss to the economy as a whole. Given that they voted for Trump on the promise of protectionist economic policy, these actions would completely contradict the very reasons they voted for him in the first place.
4) Regarding Cambodia: We are not living in a 3rd world, south-east Asian nation during the 1960s and 70s whose access to the global economic forum is limited both geographically and fiscally. Cambodia was an economic satellite revolving around communist China which, at the time, did not have the economic power that it has now. Additionally, Cambodia was not an advanced economy and had limited access to resources. Thus, its dislocation from the world market was far more devastating than it would be for the USA today. False equivalency.

As for the rural men and women who you say would extricate themselves from society; they will lose that war. The powers that are destroying them are not the MSM and the “establishment,” but are, predominantly, economic forces and technological advances in automation over which they have no control. They will crush themselves, and the urban populace, while injured by such actions on their part, would ameliorate any problems by outsourcing their needs. After all, that is what is ultimately destroying these people and for them to take such drastic actions will only accelerate that process.

The article was good until it spouted that spurious nonsense…then it lost me.