Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Maybe not. Powerful interests could co-opt New Age spirituality just as it could twist Jesus Christ into a spokesman for a corrupt, cruel economic and political order. Mystical visions have not always served benign causes -- just look at German mysticism about a century ago. It would be better if we 'channeled' Shakespeare, Cervantes, Voltaire, Tolstoy.... I am satisfied that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have 'their' visions, too.

Jesus Christ's spirituality was perverted as you say, that is true; although I doubt the possibilities of a genuine spirituality really existed then in the religions of The West, such as Judaism. Society was much too authoritarian and oriented toward Father figures. But there is no connection at all between mystical visions and German fascism, and Bachmann and Santorum are as far as could be from mysticism, and don't even have any "visions" at all; just dogma.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

When I wrote on how society would be organized in a restorationist america, there seems to have been a misconception that my proposed reforms would create generations of under-educated cannon fodder. No, the general gist of what the proposed finished product would be a society that values intelligence, expertise, and creative solutions to problems. As I mentioned earlier history and literature would be more extensively taught in schools in particular the teaching of non-western history and literature should be given more exposure.

That is good, but no, a militarist society would indeed create "under-educated cannon fodder;" that is its function and modus operandi.

I have mentioned before the idea of the military as the social fulcrum and driver of social interaction in this new society. The military of course having been purged of corporate influences and corruption and remade into a equalizing force in society. The goal is basically the creation of a society of worldly highly knowledgable warrior-scholars. This society would be a meritocratic society in which the best and brightist would ascend to leadership positions based on merit. This new elite would rule as a caste of men and women who have deserved their right to rule.

The military, purged of corporate influences, is still a military. As such it is inherently unequalizing. Elitism belongs to the past, not the future. It is a conception based on a time when most people could not be trusted to develop their capabilities, but must remain serfs. We have a long way yet to develop, but I do think we have matured beyond an ancient or medieval society.

The general result would be in terms of social values and abilities the creation of a new kind of human.

That is the province of the human potential movement of the 1960s and the new age movement of the 1970s. They have the means and correct conception of this new human.

The state and the education system would be firmly secular, however politically the state would reestablish links with traditional christianity. This traditional christianity would NOT be the "traditional" christians of today, who are firmly beholden to monied interests, but a reembracement of the concept of the sacrum-imperium in which our leadership would claim the spiritual mantle of rulership of the entire western world. This concept has not been advanced by a western nation since roughly 1650 ad. So basically I advocate not only a social reformation in which the corporate hold on society would be broken and a new equalizing force dominated by meritocratic principles, the establishment of these principles being supervised by the military but affecting all levels of society; but also a spiritual reformation in which the cumulative destruction of genuine spirituality over the last few centuries would be reversed. As I mentioned before there would also be reindustrialization of america and the rebuilding of our manufacturing capability. There would be the building of a new military machine and the rebuilding of nuclear and other defense arsenals back to and even surpassing cold war levels. This would be followed by the vassalization of latin america and the pacification of the middle east.

The problem with Christianity is not principally its money, but its authoritarian approach that separates itself as supposedly deserving to rule over other religions and peoples. It is not so deserving; if anything, it is inferior for that very reason. Eastern religions are the best, because they understand what spirituality is. Western churches do not.

We need to move past industry into the new green, post-industrial world. Industry is not a sustainable system. It is useless to advocate a system that is sure to ruin the planet in just a few more years, even if it is not rebuilt, but even just continues as it is. Industry is also hierarchical and authoritarian. Ours is the age of Revolution, and it must continue on further. We don't need a counter-revolution, we need to support the leading edge of revolution. It is a matter of life and death for us; we need to act now.

It is American imperialism and its leaders that need to be pacified, not Latin America and the Middle East. Why do you think they need to be "pacified?" They are making progress toward democracy now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is American imperialism and its leaders that need to be pacified, not Latin America and the Middle East. Why do you think they need to be "pacified?" They are making progress toward democracy now.

Notice when I refer to the proposed conquests I tend to refer to "conquest" and "vassalization" when I refer to latin america; I never use the word "pacification" when I refer to latin america but always refer to "pacification" with regards to the middle east and rarely refer that as a "conquest". These are not mere differences in terminology, the conquest of the middle east would not be like the conquest of latin america. In latin america our mission would be to ensure that those nations do not fall into the wrong hands. In the middle east it would be different, here I see our forces not merely securing our security and interests, I see them as not only the vanguard of a new synthesis in culture and civilization, but also as the leading edge of an entirely new era of human history. In the proposed middle east campaign our forces would be undertaking a world cultural mission as well. The middle east and north africa would be divided into military administrative regions as far east as turkestan and the border with india. These administrative units would be governed each by a military governor and be attended with the construction of large administrative metropolises populated by america, canadian, latin american, israeli, indian and african settlers, although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor. Each military region would carry out the systematic purging of the islamic cleric classes and the deislamization and secularization of these regions. The final function would be to establish a barrier with asia, although asian trade would flow into the middle east as a new silk road conduit between east and west.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Notice when I refer to the proposed conquests I tend to refer to "conquest" and "vassalization" when I refer to latin america; I never use the word "pacification" when I refer to latin america but always refer to "pacification" with regards to the middle east and rarely refer that as a "conquest". These are not mere differences in terminology, the conquest of the middle east would not be like the conquest of latin america. In latin america our mission would be to ensure that those nations do not fall into the wrong hands.

There is no such danger right now. The only danger comes from the United States. The best we can do is help and encourage them to stay on the democratic course. That's what President Carter did, and it worked.

In the middle east it would be different, here I see our forces not merely securing our security and interests, I see them as not only the vanguard of a new synthesis in culture and civilization, but also as the leading edge of an entirely new era of human history. In the proposed middle east campaign our forces would be undertaking a world cultural mission as well. The middle east and north africa would be divided into military administrative regions as far east as turkestan and the border with india. These administrative units would be governed each by a military governor and be attended with the construction of large administrative metropolises populated by america, canadian, latin american, israeli, indian and african settlers, although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor. Each military region would carry out the systematic purging of the islamic cleric classes and the deislamization and secularization of these regions. The final function would be to establish a barrier with asia, although asian trade would flow into the middle east as a new silk road conduit between east and west.

There is no moral or legal basis for us to purge anyone of their religion or their religious authorities. The religious authorities in the United States are almost bad as those in the Middle East. It is up to these peoples to make progress on their own, as they are doing in the Arab Spring. We can help, but not in the way you propose. Your way would only mean much more terrorism, war and hatred. What's to stop the authorites in the Middle East from conceiving the same "pacification" and "new era" for the United States? That is exactly what Al Qaeda has in mind.

Very serious situation. Many Americans have no idea what the TPP even means.

TransPacific Partnership Will Undermine Democracy, Empower Transnational Corporations

If the TPP is approved, the sovereignty of the United States and other member nations will be dissipated by trade tribunals that favor corporate power and force national laws to be subservient to corporate interests.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15353...l-corporations

I have mentioned on several occasions a new society created within a proposed restorationist america. I mentioned how americans both men and women, and of all races and colors would unite to form a society of friends and countrymen. This new society would be guided by the supervision of the military which would be the social fulcrum of the nation. The model of society I arrived at by taking the best potiental ideas from liberalism and the more realistic aspects of conservatism, however the greater portion of the ideological underpinnings are ideals I discovered while casually carrying out historical research. The 11th century chinese reformer wang anshi had proposed a society in which every family would have at produce at least one trained soldier, coupled with a centralized state. I mentioned earlier the pacification of the middle east; here another concept comes into mind. The mongols had a concept of mending fault lines within society by fighting side by side and shedding blood on foreign soil. The restorationist state would resemble the centralized asian states of the 6th through 17th centuries in terms of efficiency and state power. The pacification of the middle east would be a civilizational task in which would facilitate the cultural reconcilliation of the middle east and the west. The military campaign which would precede this pacification would consolidate the meritocratic reformation of america mentioned in previous posts, in that the wounds and wear and tear on society would be healed by first the meritocratic reformation of society with the military at its center. The war in the middle east would constitute the final mending of society, this war will facilitate the end of the terrorist threat that attacked us on 9/11 and still lurks in those regions. Terrorism would be responded with total war, and the establishment of military regions after the campaign. These military governorships, like all other positions would be governed by those who have proven the most competent and skillful. These, like all other major adminstrative positions whether in the middle east or back at home or in other anglophone nations in latin america or elsewhere; would be governed with ruthless efficiency. This is especially true in the middle east where the military regions, a political unit that would uniquely applied to that region, and their administration, would be the vanguard of the reorganizing of civilization and the ushering in of a new era of human history. This will be a daunting task particularly in regions where radical political islamism has dug in deep roots, in these militant regions the deislamization and secularization would likely require the elimination of entire social and political categories in order for those areas to be properly reformed. This will result in a new golden era in which anglophone, latin american, indian ,african, and the reformed middle east's cultures would gradually merge culturally forming a universal culture and eventual superstate.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I have mentioned on several occasions a new society created within a proposed restorationist america. I mentioned how americans both men and women, and of all races and colors would unite to form a society of friends and countrymen. This new society would be guided by the supervision of the military which would be the social fulcrum of the nation.

What happens if military preparedness becomes an obsolete concern?

It would be far less expensive to draft our best and brightest youth to seek a college degree in some foreign country. That way we could have our best learn what works and what does not. Maybe some American youth could return with a college degree from Japan with some idea of why Japanese streets are safe at night. Maybe they would return from Russia with enthusiasm for Pushkin. Maybe they would return from Myanmar with an idea of what to avoid.

...Military regimes have their virtues. Sarkar sees them as unified and comparatively egalitarian in economic results. They are meritocracies in which class privilege outside of the military hierarchy means little. They can obliterate ethnic divisions as societies better characterized with laissez-faire attitudes cannot. Their educational systems well master the teaching of the educational basics. Their economies are adept at providing the barest needs for all without glaring poverty, but it is shared sacrifice. The faults? Military-directed societies do things with brute force. They have little room for imagination, enterprise, or intellectual independence. They offer hierarchical rule without finding a satisfying rationale. Think of the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union as examples.

What they win on the battlefield they often lose at the bargaining table because the other side has someone more clever with legal formalities and word use. The intellectuals take over as priests, professors, and attorneys. Someone has to establish purpose and law. Someone has to teach the fine arts of geometry and geography.

The model of society I arrived at by taking the best potiential ideas from liberalism and the more realistic aspects of conservatism, however the greater portion of the ideological underpinnings are ideals I discovered while casually carrying out historical research. The 11th century chinese reformer wang anshi had proposed a society in which every family would have at produce at least one trained soldier, coupled with a centralized state. I mentioned earlier the pacification of the middle east; here another concept comes into mind. The mongols had a concept of mending fault lines within society by fighting side by side and shedding blood on foreign soil. The restorationist state would resemble the centralized asian states of the 6th through 17th centuries in terms of efficiency and state power.

The model Catholic family at one time was a large one. One of the sons would become a priest. One daughter would become a nun. Others would have certain expectations. But that may now be unsustainable. Zero Population Growth is the norm in the advanced industrial world, and that is incompatible with a political order that 'needs' cannon fodder for aggressive warfare.

The pacification of the middle east would be a civilizational task in which would facilitate the cultural reconcilliation of the middle east and the west. The military campaign which would precede this pacification would consolidate the meritocratic reformation of America mentioned in previous posts, in that the wounds and wear and tear on society would be healed by first the meritocratic reformation of society with the military at its center.

See objective accounts of the Crusades. The Crusades practically doomed Christianity in the Levant (it was a going concern under Muslim rulers before the Eastern Christians turned to Islam for defense against the Crusaders who saw Eastern Christians as heretics) and fatally weakened the Byzantine Empire. Christianity has survived in Egypt and Iraq, where the Crusaders never posed a threat.

Our rapacious elites now see themselves as the definitive expression of meritocracy. The fault is that they act irresponsibly toward anyone not a part of them.

The war in the middle east would constitute the final mending of society, this war will facilitate the end of the terrorist threat that attacked us on 9/11 and still lurks in those regions. Terrorism would be responded with total war, and the establishment of military regions after the campaign.

To the contrary -- it would be an apocalypse. As for a terrorist threat -- any political entity so operating would become a terrorist state. If you think that we now have enemies, just think of what widows and orphans of those that a Western terrorist state think of us.

Islam is not going away. It is so entwined with some cultures that extirpation of Islam requires extirpation of nations that have those cultures. A word for such extirpation is genocide.

These military governorships, like all other positions would be governed by those who have proven the most competent and skillful. These, like all other major adminstrative positions whether in the middle east or back at home or in other anglophone nations in latin america or elsewhere; would be governed with ruthless efficiency. This is especially true in the middle east where the military regions, a political unit that would uniquely applied to that region, and their administration, would be the vanguard of the reorganizing of civilization and the ushering in of a new era of human history.

Crusades, Inquisition, Fascism. The scum of the West except for Bolsheviks and the Atlantic slave trade.

This will be a daunting task particularly in regions where radical political islamism has dug in deep roots, in these militant regions the deislamization and secularization would likely require the elimination of entire social and political categories in order to be properly reformed. This will result in a new golden era in which anglophone, latin american, indian ,african, and the reformed middle east's cultures would gradually merge culturally forming a universal culture and eventual superstate.

Hitler sought to exterminate the 11 million Jews. Such an insane quest ultimately crippled the Nazi war effort. Our world has a hundred times as many Muslims. They are not going to go quietly into gas chambers. They have far more resources for fighting back. They could defeat a genocidal America and its misguided allies.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The 11th century chinese reformer wang anshi had proposed a society in which every family would have at produce at least one trained soldier, coupled with a centralized state. I mentioned earlier the pacification of the middle east; here another concept comes into mind. The mongols had a concept of mending fault lines within society by fighting side by side and shedding blood on foreign soil. The restorationist state would resemble the centralized asian states of the 6th through 17th centuries in terms of efficiency and state power.

Yeah, 6th century/11th century Asia, Genghis Khan, really good models! Maybe the Ch'in emperor?

The war in the middle east would constitute the final mending of society, this war will facilitate the end of the terrorist threat that attacked us on 9/11 and still lurks in those regions. Terrorism would be responded with total war, and the establishment of military regions after the campaign.

We've already over-responded to 9-11 and have done all we need to do, or can do.

This will result in a new golden era in which anglophone, latin american, indian ,african, and the reformed middle east's cultures would gradually merge culturally forming a universal culture and eventual superstate.

Seig Heil!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To the contrary -- it would be an apocalypse. As for a terrorist threat -- any political entity so operating would become a terrorist state. If you think that we now have enemies, just think of what widows and orphans of those that a Western terrorist state think of us.

Islam is not going away. It is so entwined with some cultures that extirpation of Islam requires extirpation of nations that have those cultures. A word for such extirpation is genocide.

I Think Most of the world understands that we are the good guys in the war, and that the future of human rights would be far more secure following a US general pacification of the middle east, than the current islamist terrorist domination prevalent in the mideast. The international community would not side with a bunch of terrorist states over the defender of democracy and human dignity. I do not discount the possiblity of self-interested russian and/or chinese entry into the proposed campaign in order to frustrate american geopolitical interests, likely to secure the oil fields of iraq, iran and arabia for their own spheres of influence. However even if such an attack from russia/china into the middle east occured and american arms were obliged to cede control of the oil producing combine areas, the russians would have no interest in the rest of the middle east. Likely if that occured, a compromise peace would be negotiated in which the oil fields of arabia, iraq and iran would fall into the russian sphere in exchange for confirmation of american domination of latin america, north africa, and the levant. This could occur and not conflict with overall American objectives nor would it conflict with restorationist objectives that much because our goal in the mideast would be pacification, not control of oil fields.

What is described here may have to wait until after some sort of near death experience of Western Civilization. It may be that the fires of WMD may be the only thing capable of impressing upon the Bread and Circuses stuffed minions, the true nature of Men. Only after a discrediting of certain utopian notions hatched during the Enlightenment and which came to the fore after WW2 would it be possible to align the masses as described. Only then would the mass men respect an Arch General or other similar monarch or quasi monarch.

The combination of the ancien regime and meritocracy was last seen in it purest essence during the Carolingian times. And we know what sort of trials and tribulations had to be passed in order for the people to arrive at a state where they could be led in that manner.

All of this having been written, the current storm clouds portend a looming global war of mass destruction. The allies will be, roughly, the Anglosphere and certain other nations and peoples who seek to align with us. We already know who the Axis will be. Some things have not changed in 1600 years.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

What is described here may have to wait until after some sort of near death experience of Western Civilization. It may be that the fires of WMD may be the only thing capable of impressing upon the Bread and Circuses stuffed minions, the true nature of Men. Only after a discrediting of certain utopian notions hatched during the Enlightenment and which came to the fore after WW2 would it be possible to align the masses as described. Only then would the mass men respect an Arch General or other similar monarch or quasi monarch.

The combination of the ancien regime and meritocracy was last seen in it purest essence during the Carolingian times. And we know what sort of trials and tribulations had to be passed in order for the people to arrive at a state where they could be led in that manner.

All of this having been written, the current storm clouds portend a looming global war of mass destruction. The allies will be, roughly, the Anglosphere and certain other nations and peoples who seek to align with us. We already know who the Axis will be. Some things have not changed in 1600 years.

Problem with a WMD war with iran and north korea is that such a war would last only a few weeks at most due to the disparity in forces; iran doesn't have nukes yet and north korea only has a handful of tactical nukes currently.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

What is described here may have to wait until after some sort of near death experience of Western Civilization. It may be that the fires of WMD may be the only thing capable of impressing upon the Bread and Circuses stuffed minions, the true nature of Men. Only after a discrediting of certain utopian notions hatched during the Enlightenment and which came to the fore after WW2 would it be possible to align the masses as described. Only then would the mass men respect an Arch General or other similar monarch or quasi monarch.

The combination of the ancien regime and meritocracy was last seen in it purest essence during the Carolingian times. And we know what sort of trials and tribulations had to be passed in order for the people to arrive at a state where they could be led in that manner.

I was envisioning meritocracy along the ancient and medieval asian model that existed until about the late 1600s, except of course with christianity as the religion of the civilization. A war with iran and/or north korea is possible, even involving wmd use. However even if the Iranian threat disappeared, it would likely be replaced by some other islamist force due to barbarization of culture in the mideast over last couple centuries. I don't think the post-ww2 model would be replaced anytime soon other than with restorationism followed by conquest of latin american and general pacification in the middle east, although a possible geopolitical polarization like that of the first 14 years of the 20th century could occur resulting in world war. However such a world war would be of war of power interests, more like WW1 than WW2. An ideological shift such as you describle would require an enemy worse and even more powerful than the nazis and imperial japanese were. The islamists don't really make that cut, even though they need to be pacified.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86;465234[B

]I Think Most of the world understands that we are the good guys in the war, a[/B]nd that the future of human rights would be far more secure following a US general pacification of the middle east, than the current islamist terrorist domination prevalent in the mideast. The international community would not side with a bunch of terrorist states over the defender of democracy and human dignity. I do not discount the possiblity of self-interested russian and/or chinese entry into the proposed campaign in order to frustrate american geopolitical interests, likely to secure the oil fields of iraq, iran and arabia for their own spheres of influence. However even if such an attack from russia/china into the middle east occured and american arms were obliged to cede control of the oil producing combine areas, the russians would have no interest in the rest of the middle east. Likely if that occured, a compromise peace would be negotiated in which the oil fields of arabia, iraq and iran would fall into the russian sphere in exchange for confirmation of american domination of latin america, north africa, and the levant. This could occur and not conflict with overall American objectives nor would it conflict with restorationist objectives that much because our goal in the mideast would be pacification, not control of oil fields.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I was envisioning meritocracy along the ancient and medieval asian model that existed until about the late 1600s, except of course with christianity as the religion of the civilization. A war with iran and/or north korea is possible, even involving wmd use. However even if the Iranian threat disappeared, it would likely be replaced by some other islamist force due to barbarization of culture in the mideast over last couple centuries. I don't think the post-ww2 model would be replaced anytime soon other than with restorationism followed by conquest of latin american and general pacification in the middle east, although a possible geopolitical polarization like that of the first 14 years of the 20th century could occur resulting in world war. However such a world war would be of war of power interests, more like WW1 than WW2. An ideological shift such as you describle would require an enemy worse and even more powerful than the nazis and imperial japanese were. The islamists don't really make that cut, even though they need to be pacified.

1. Christianity? The Christianity of the Crusades, Inquisition, and persecution of real and imagined witches? The Trail of Tears? The Christendom that produced Fascisti, Nazis, and the KKK? No thanks. The worst of Christianity is as bad as the worst of Islam.

2. Careful about them there sentence fragments. They just don't make sense.

3. Barbarization of the Arab and Muslim world over the last two centuries? Sure.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...b=itK37k7ratY&

The 'barbarity' is definitely not associated with the skin color of the victim. It was applied to the skin of the victim.

4. Latin America can take care of itself -- of course it would help if we Americans would quit using so many d@mned street drugs. Latin America is undeniably Western.

5. There were fewer Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Japanese as a share of the world's population were fewer than there are Arabs... or Muslims. If we do as you suggest, then we are the bad guys. The Axis Powers lost World War II because of their atrocities. Unlike the Americans, British, and Free French the Axis Powers (the Finns excepted) were never at peace among the peoples that they conquered.

What the nation needs is a new ideology that takes the best from liberalism and conservatism, as well as tried and true ideas that have proven to work. My proposals are as follows:

1) Create an equitable society by eliminating corporate dominance from our political and social institutions, create reforms by breaking up monopolies and encouraging small business. Remove remaining barriers for women and minorities in society. However gay marriage should not be pursued.

2) Reform the education system by providing quality education for all regardless of race or income. These educational reforms would be supervised by the military. Reform education in order to better prepare students for life in the outside world, students should learn not only the traditional subjects but also emergency and survival skills. Technical and vocational schools should be built and opened to provide students training for jobs to avoid the situation of students finishing their education in large numbers but finding no jobs which they are trained to do.

3.) Reindustrialize the nation by building factories and tech centers, manufacturing capacity should be rebuilt and outsourcing put to an end. Companies would hire american workers on pain of treason charges. Build weapons factories in order to facilitate rearmament of military arsenals, both conventional and unconventional.

4.) Expand the army to a strength of over 15 million troops, with another 8 million in the navy, airforce, marine corps and national guards; there should also be another 25 million trained reserve troops. At least one member of each family should have at least limited military training.

5.) Form an anglophone union with canada, britain, australia, new zealand, and other english speaking nations. Carry out the conquest and vassalization of latin america, and establish pro-american governments there to keep that region from falling into the wrong hands like venezuela has. This should be followed by the general pacification of the middle east and the division of the mideast into military regions administered by military governors.

6.) With regard to the general pacification of the middle east, keep in mind that due to the barbarian forces that infest and have corrupted that region, that the proposed pacification would not be conducted like how america traditionally has conducted nation-building or be conducted like the campaign proposed for latin america. The conquest of the middle east would not be like the proposed conquest of latin america or like the occupations of afghanistan and iraq have been. The war in the middle east would have to be conducted with ruthless efficiency and unparrelleled harshness. The islamic does not respect peacefulness and has nothing but pure contempt for justice. This war has been started by the islamic fascists who have effectively made a declaration of war on civilization itself. Mercy to islamic fascist barbarians is not a restorationist principle. The military regions and their administration would be the leading edge of a civilizational reconcilliation and entirely new era of human history.

7.) After the pacification of the middle east is completed, encourage the cultural diffusion and merging of anglophone, latin american, indian, african, and reformed middle east cultures to create a universal culture and ultimately create a new superstate.

You are too young to be so stubborn and dogmatic, M. Hero.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What the nation needs is a new ideology that takes the best from liberalism and conservatism, as well as tried and true ideas that have proven to work. My proposals are as follows:

1) Create an equitable society by eliminating corporate dominance from our political and social institutions, create reforms by breaking up monopolies and encouraging small business. Remove remaining barriers for women and minorities in society.

No problem there. Monopolies, trusts, and cartels are great for generating high profits for investors and high compensation for executives and political hacks who do their bidding, but terrible for the rest of us. The only rationale for a monopoly is either a natural monopoly (distribution of electrical power, sports franchises, government services) or a dying industry that could not otherwise survive.

However gay marriage should not be pursued.

Same-sex marriage is winning. Wise people choose their battles with caution. Same-sex marriage is gaining support just as America cracks down on sexual abuse of children and spouse-beating. If I were a conservative I would consider that a good trade.

2) Reform the education system by providing quality education for all regardless of race or income.

Who isn't for that? We have gone through educational fads from New Math to multiculturalism to bilingual education to TV and computers in the classroom... and the results are awful in K-12 education. We could probably make college education affordable again by reverting to the liberal-arts model as a norm for non-technical education. All that the liberal arts college did was to give good models for emulation, teach people to write coherently (if not creatively), establish cultural norms, and demonstrate that there is more to life than "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" with bureaucratic power and material indulgence on the side.

If there is any huge fault in our educational system it is that it has no objective other than to stimulate the mind.

These educational reforms would be supervised by the military.

The great paradox is that during the early part of the last Crisis the German, Italian, and Japanese political systems attempted to indoctrinate children in martial virtues from an early age. Regimentation, blind obedience, denial of individuality, and and an exaggerated patriotism were to transform nations and their cultures into unstoppable machines of conquest. In contrast the peoples of the Anglosphere utterly failed at that. So the British and Americans should have been utterly defeated by peoples trained from childhood to march, get in formations, and consider death for their God-like leaders the highest purpose in life, right?

Wrong. The military model is appropriate for the armed forces and fire brigades. It is completely inappropriate for family life, commerce, creative activity, and education. Career military people know that well and recognize the need for a clear separation of military and civil life. The consumer-based economies of the late 1930s in Britain and America, even after the mauling that they took from the Great Depression, proved far more flexible in meeting the freakish needs of wartime than did the fascist economies. British and American leaders could imagine a better world after the war for even the conquered peoples, and back to normal for the heroic fighters of a time that nobody wanted to maintain. The fascists could offer only slavery and genocide.

Reform education in order to better prepare students for life in the outside world, students should learn not only the traditional subjects but also emergency and survival skills. Technical and vocational schools should be built and opened to provide students training for jobs to avoid the situation of students finishing their education in large numbers but finding no jobs which they are trained to do.

It would be better if most of our best-and-brightest took a couple of years to do menial and industrial work so that they could know 'how the other half lives'. Maybe they could then empathize with people who do the dirty, emotionally-crushing, mind-numbing, dangerous, or back-breaking toil of cleaners, domestic servants, assembly-line workers, miners, loggers, farm workers, and deliverymen. Maybe having known such they would think differently about workers than to believe that they are nothing but expendable proles.

We are headed down a perverse path of 90% of the populace suffering for 5% or fewer. The American economy was far more just (at least in industry and commerce) when executives came through the ranks, having started on the shop floor (what -- not financial analysis?) and gone through engineering, accounting (as clerks), or some dreary sales route in a God-awful part of the country before, when they were about ten years from retirement, making 10 to 20 times what a factory worker was making. That was too late, with too little pay, to allow the executive to ditch his childhood sweetheart for someone who resembles the Playmate of the Month. The executive had a mortgage just about paid off, but not the means for buying any mansion. He typically had loyalties to the organization and to subordinates (do well for subordinates and they will do things for you). Of course that implied that corporate organizations were smaller and more local, which ill fits the values of the MBA school.

3.) Reindustrialize the nation by building factories and tech centers, manufacturing capacity should be rebuilt and outsourcing put to an end. Companies would hire American workers on pain of treason charges. Build weapons factories in order to facilitate rearmament of military arsenals, both conventional and unconventional.

Bad means for meeting a desirable objective. We need to build more community loyalty even if it implies fostering a sappy sentimentality. I'm not sure that huge military spending achieves anything except to foster budget deficits and enrich entities unable to compete in a free market.

4.) Expand the army to a strength of over 15 million troops, with another 8 million in the navy, airforce, marine corps and national guards; there should also be another 25 million trained reserve troops. At least one member of each family should have at least limited military training.

Military as the employer of last resort? We would do better with CCC-style camps.

5.) Form an anglophone union with canada, britain, australia, new zealand, and other english speaking nations. Carry out the conquest and vassalization of latin america, and establish pro-american governments there to keep that region from falling into the wrong hands like venezuela has. This should be followed by the general pacification of the middle east and the division of the mideast into military regions administered by military governors.

Hugo Chavez was never a puppet of anyone. But I ask you this -- do you know any people from any part of Latin America? Have you asked what they feel about your proposal? Do you think that they want puppet leaders who do to the what Pinochet did in Chile? Set up puppets like Fulgencio Batista and you may get such consequences as... Fidel Castro.

6.) With regard to the general pacification of the middle east, keep in mind that due to the barbarian forces that infest and have corrupted that region, that the proposed pacification would not be conducted like how america traditionally has conducted nation-building or be conducted like the campaign proposed for latin america. The conquest of the middle east would not be like the proposed conquest of latin america or like the occupations of afghanistan and iraq have been. The war in the middle east would have to be conducted with ruthless efficiency and unparrelleled harshness.

Ruthless efficiency and unparallelled harshness... does that language sound familiar? It comes from German leadership in the last Crisis Era. A hint: Alfred Rosenberg, who engineered much of that, died with a rope around his throat for putting such language into a design that mangled flesh and shed blood in great quantities in the eastern conquests of the Third Reich.

The islamic does not respect peacefulness and has nothing but pure contempt for justice. This war has been started by the islamic fascists who have effectively made a declaration of war on civilization itself. Mercy to islamic fascist barbarians is not a restorationist principle. The military regions and their administration would be the leading edge of a civilizational reconcilliation and entirely new era of human history.

Uncivilized? The Arab Muslims established a sophisticated civilization from the Levant to Spain in the early Middle Ages while most of the West wallowed in uncreative barbarism. Iran is Muslim and not Arab -- and it has a nasty economic and political order that deserves to go down for corruption, tyranny, and injustice. But it has sophisticated technology. The idea of swaddling women and girls in chadors might be troublesome -- but people defy what Americans expect as numbing blandness with style.

Leave Islam alone. The worst in it will implode just as happened to the "Great Socialist Jamhurriyah" of Muammar Qaddafi and will likely happen to totalitarian-but-brittle Syria under Bashir Assad.

There is nothing wrong in Islam that a careful study of the Federalist Papers by Muslims couldn't solve. Has that work been translated into Arabic, Farsi, etc.?

7.) After the pacification of the middle east is completed, encourage the cultural diffusion and merging of anglophone, latin american, indian, african, and reformed middle east cultures to create a universal culture and ultimately create a new superstate.

As if much of that is not happening in America without compulsion.

A hint: Dearborn is the most livable city in Michigan. Detroit is arguably the vilest big city in America. The Arab Muslims have insisted that Dearborn have a family-friendly culture, and the cops pick up any drunks and whores who wander over from the Sodom and Gomorrah that is southwestern Detroit with its liquor stores and 'adult entertainment'. But many Christians and Jews happen to like Dearborn. Better the mosque than the whorehouse, and better that their teenage daughters can't have the dubious freedom of dressing like whores.

It does not seem Mr. Civic Hero is capable of learning from the history that you point out brower. Humanity as a whole has probably learned something though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It does not seem Mr. Civic Hero is capable of learning from the history that you point out brower. Humanity as a whole has probably learned something though.

Would you share what humanity has learned? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Would you share what humanity has learned? Thanks.

I get your point. But I don't think the USA or other empires are going on any NAZI-like pacifications and conquests anytime soon, as Civic Hero advocates. If the USA attacks other nations and peoples, even for its own gain, it is careful of the scale, and also to couch it in terms of self-defense or boosting democracy, and to have an exit or scale-down strategy if troops are sent.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Would you share what humanity has learned? Thanks.

I hope --

1. That exploitation and oppression, however tempting at first to those who get the early gains, ultimately undo those who initiate it, or at least their heirs.

2. That hatred makes haters mad.

3. Madness is a detriment to anyone in a life-and-death struggle (including a Crisis Era).

4. Evil is a choice -- a bad one.

5. The best of almost any national or religious tradition is better than the worst of any tradition -- including one's own.

6. Objective reality prevails almost all the time.

7. The capacity to do great harm to others is best unused.

If the last Crisis should have taught anything, it is that kindness, caution, and conscience are aids to winning conflicts. The Nazis had to use troops to quell partisan uprisings against them. The Americans and British never faced partisan uprisings in World War II. Such is the difference between ending the war with conquest and war going underground after conquest.

Real victory comes from sapping the desire of the losing side to strike back.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I get your point. But I don't think the USA or other empires are going on any NAZI-like pacifications and conquests anytime soon, as Civic Hero advocates. If the USA attacks other nations and peoples, even for its own gain, it is careful of the scale, and also to couch it in terms of self-defense or boosting democracy, and to have an exit or scale-down strategy if troops are sent.

How is defending your nation in self-defense fascist or nazi? How is defending freedom from tyranny a nazi-like idea? Face the truth; islamic fascists and their allies pose a clear and present danger to world security and global civilization. The general pacification is the cure to this scourge.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Problem with a WMD war with iran and north korea is that such a war would last only a few weeks at most due to the disparity in forces; iran doesn't have nukes yet and north korea only has a handful of tactical nukes currently.

The global WMD war I allude to would involve the whole of the SCO and its various vassal states and hangers on as the Axis, and the Allies would be the Anglosphere (or some major subset of it) along with our own hangers on. The munition exchange would be immense.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I was envisioning meritocracy along the ancient and medieval asian model that existed until about the late 1600s, except of course with christianity as the religion of the civilization. A war with iran and/or north korea is possible, even involving wmd use. However even if the Iranian threat disappeared, it would likely be replaced by some other islamist force due to barbarization of culture in the mideast over last couple centuries. I don't think the post-ww2 model would be replaced anytime soon other than with restorationism followed by conquest of latin american and general pacification in the middle east, although a possible geopolitical polarization like that of the first 14 years of the 20th century could occur resulting in world war. However such a world war would be of war of power interests, more like WW1 than WW2. An ideological shift such as you describle would require an enemy worse and even more powerful than the nazis and imperial japanese were. The islamists don't really make that cut, even though they need to be pacified.

The SCO and its aligned interests (including, ironically or perhaps cynically, the Islamonazi forces) constitute the rising Fourth Reich.

There will never be a WMD war with russia. The russians are not islamic fanatics and MAD still applies to ours and their arsenals. The russians are also alot weaker coventionally now than they were say 30 years ago. Also The dominant player in SCO is china, not russia, the russians will likely be reduced to the status of a chinese vassal within the next generation or so, any military conflict will simply advance that vassalization. I could see how a US-led and chinese led coalitions could end up in each other's crosshairs though. However none of the other great powers would likely tolerate the formation of a russian-led bloc again.