Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Drastic, anger-driven, racist and fanatical policies like yours are not likely to win the day. Insulting and striking at all "Islamists," instead of strategic moves to counter terrorism, will only create more trouble for us. We may need to fight Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups, or support those who do, and guard against them at home, but if we fight them by bombing and droning their people, we create more enemies. If we adopt the mentality of those we oppose, we can't expect to achieve our goals. Talking like "fighting Islamists tooth and nail," like you and Mr. Cynic Hero do, only makes America hated in the world and bankrupt at home.

First, Islam is not a "race," and second, what I have in mind is fighting Islamism in a Cold War sense, not in a Hot War sense - and the Central African Republic is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The H-1B visa is a salary attack weapon, used by any company that can get them. If the folks at the bottom have been automated out of work, the folks in STEM fields are subject to immigrant competition.

Employers now hires more non-Americans for STEM jobs, than is does Americans. Because of the terms of the visa, the employer has a foreign employee in a quasi-slavery position, which they use to extract lower pay ... and it's getting worse every year.

no kidding.

Goodbye higher Ed in a generation.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

First, Islam is not a "race," and second, what I have in mind is fighting Islamism in a Cold War sense, not in a Hot War sense - and the Central African Republic is a good place to start.

Because the cold war was so great.

Yeah, I was in the Cold War. No war is fun. The obsession with Islam will run out with the oil, and the last Izzy armpit deep in the Med. Don't think that can not happen.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We might as well attract those very smart people, give them strong incentives (including excellent pay), put them on the fast track to citizenship, and encourage them to become a part of our gene pool.

Economic exploitations doe not create prosperity; it steals prosperity on behalf of a few and denies it to others.

The solution is simple: eliminate the visa, and mandate issuance of a green card. If an employer wishes to sponsor any number of foreigners to get lower priced labor, the lower priced labor should get the right to walk out if the deal stinks.

It's not a perfect fix, but it does eliminate the worst abuses.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

First, Islam is not a "race," and second, what I have in mind is fighting Islamism in a Cold War sense, not in a Hot War sense - and the Central African Republic is a good place to start.

Islamism is usually none of our business, unless it poses some kind of threat to our country or our allies. Islamism need not be singled out as a target. I do think we should support freedom movements where we can, in a "cold" way, and help peace-keeping efforts. It looks like the French are doing good work in trying to keep down the violence in the Central African Republic. But tyrants and terrorists are of many different stripes, not just "Islamists." Islam is not a race, but it is prejudice to single out Islam as a target.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

no kidding.

Goodbye higher Ed in a generation.

Precisely. The exploitation of the H-1B visa gives American youth good cause to avoid science and engineering as vocations. Science and engineering are powerful tools of economic progress, but for those to be effective they need middle-class or upper-middle-class rewards. Even the commies knew how to reward scientists and engineers well, which explains why the Soviet Union had a strong scientific community and great technological achievements despite an economic order did almost everything else badly. (OK, they did mathematics, chess, and classical music well).

Our reactionary elites want a New Feudalism -- an order without a middle class, for it has only rapacious elites and destitute toilers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Islamism is usually none of our business, unless it poses some kind of threat to our country or our allies. Islamism need not be singled out as a target. I do think we should support freedom movements where we can, in a "cold" way, and help peace-keeping efforts. It looks like the French are doing good work in trying to keep down the violence in the Central African Republic. But tyrants and terrorists are of many different stripes, not just "Islamists." Islam is not a race, but it is prejudice to single out Islam as a target.

But they need to singled out as a target - because they are conspiring to take over the world and set up a global caliphate!

And don't tell me how much of an "underdog" they would be in a war against us. Wasn't tiny North Vietnam a pretty heavy "underdog" against us too; and, even more relevant, weren't a ragtag bunch of "Minuteman" a truly massive "underdog" against the mighty British Empire?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But they need to singled out as a target - because they are conspiring to take over the world and set up a global caliphate!

And don't tell me how much of an "underdog" they would be in a war against us. Wasn't tiny North Vietnam a pretty heavy "underdog" against us too; and, even more relevant, weren't a ragtag bunch of "Minuteman" a truly massive "underdog" against the mighty British Empire?

Both examples are cases of popular domestic insurgencies fighting foreign armies. Are you suggestng that the US is now an Islamic country, and Islamic insurgents can count on the support of the people?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But they need to singled out as a target - because they are conspiring to take over the world and set up a global caliphate!

The irony is that of all the ancient empires, the Caliphate is probably the closest analogue to the United States. (The British Empire is more obvious, but it is recent). We have a huge free-trade zone and a market economy. We have limited government (contrast Imperial Russia). We have diversity. We have a strong scientific community (contrast Rome).

And don't tell me how much of an "underdog" they would be in a war against us. Wasn't tiny North Vietnam a pretty heavy "underdog" against us too; and, even more relevant, weren't a ragtag bunch of "Minuteman" a truly massive "underdog" against the mighty British Empire?

Micromanaging a war from a distance is horrible stewardship.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Micromanaging a war from a distance is horrible stewardship.

Yeah, the results were really unsuccessful when we did it under Ronald Reagan, facing a much more formidable enemy.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Yeah, the results were really unsuccessful when we did it under Ronald Reagan, facing a much more formidable enemy.

Under Reagan, we won the huge war against the tiny island of Grenada (GO USA!), but got our asses handed to us in Lebanon. Not a great record.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Under Reagan, we won the huge war against the tiny island of Grenada (GO USA!), but got our asses handed to us in Lebanon. Not a great record.

If memory serves, didn't we also kick the shit out of Panama and capture Noriega?

Originally Posted by TnT

If memory serves, didn't we also kick the shit out of Panama and capture Noriega?

Bush 1. Sorry, Tim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...sion_of_Panama

As I have said numerous times before; restorationism can provide genuine reforms and genuine equality of opportunity. This would be accomplished by the establishment of the meritocratic elite, the civil-military education system, the civil-military adminstrative structure and meritocratic elite class. This elite would be consist of two primary forces, entrepreneural leaders who will rise by exploiting various holdings, and career civil and military elite classes who would be trained from birth for leadership. Holdings and revenue bases would be acquired by various foreign policy endevours such as the vassalization of latin america and the general pacification of the middle east and north africa. The goal would be the creation of an entirely new ethos in america and the creation of entirely new traditions in american culture. It would be comparable to the creation of the imperial-bureaucratic military ruling class that lasted in china from 1600 bc and did not noticeably decline until the 1700s ad. This would be america's version of that, but steeped in the best positive elements of the american worldview. This in itself would be the vanguard of the creation of a entirely new type of human.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Under Reagan, we won the huge war against the tiny island of Grenada (GO USA!), but got our asses handed to us in Lebanon. Not a great record.

Oh, what about Nicaragua and El Salvador - which is actually what I had in mind?

The CIA should be all over the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Ivory Coast (and probably some other countries as well), doing what they do best. No way can we allow the African continent to become one gigantic base of operations for al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But they need to singled out as a target - because they are conspiring to take over the world and set up a global caliphate!

And don't tell me how much of an "underdog" they would be in a war against us. Wasn't tiny North Vietnam a pretty heavy "underdog" against us too; and, even more relevant, weren't a ragtag bunch of "Minuteman" a truly massive "underdog" against the mighty British Empire?

You have a point, but in my experience of your posts, you lump together a vast array of Muslims under the heading of Islamists and say they ought to be fought against. You might do better to be more careful who you call an Islamist. If we live in a free society, then we would be no better than the Islamists if we profile or target people based on their religion. And if we "fight" them, we need to do it in a way that does not make more enemies of the USA among Muslim people. Attacks like the one in Iraq was unjustified and sets a bad precedent, of attacking countries just because we don't like their government, or attacking people just because they have the wrong ideology. Drone attacks on the people (and collateral damage from attacks on terrorists) will not help the cause of freedom.

We need to help the people achieve freedom, not fight them. That's why we need to help the people rising up in Syria. Not by going to war, but by helping them fight or, if we are unwilling or unable to do that, at least help the refugees. The only solution for these people who want to live in freedom may be to help them leave their tyranny behind and resettle in another land. Maybe Syria should be left to the Alowites who are willing to live under tyranny, and to the terrorists who came in to take advantage of the chaos, and we need to block off their country until it falls of its own weight.

I think Iran will gradually change from within. As they do, support for Islamists will decrease. As freedom movements succeed in Sunni lands too, fewer young people will turn to religious fanaticism. Islamists are on their way out in Egypt.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Oh, what about Nicaragua and El Salvador - which is actually what I had in mind?

The CIA should be all over the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Ivory Coast (and probably some other countries as well), doing what they do best. No way can we allow the African continent to become one gigantic base of operations for al Qaeda.

If you wish to use Iran-Contra as a positive example, then feel free to do so. In my opinion, it's a stain on Reagan, highlights criminal behavior by Oliver North, and reflects poorly on the US in general.

... and regarding a plan to completely destabilize the African continent, hasn't the last 70 years proven that we are not and can never be the solution the areas's problems? Things are bad enough, but only will only get worse if we meddle.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Bush 1. Sorry, Tim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...sion_of_Panama

Oops. ::::blush::::::::

You have all, more-or-less, missed the point of this thread.

What I oppose is the contemptible class warfare rhetoric of the modern Republican Party, rooted in Nixon's Franklin vs. Orthogonian dualism, the conspiracy theories against the "left-winged media" (said does not exist - a vague nostalgia for the New Deal is basically conservative in an ideological sense), Christian martyrdom complexes, etc.

Again, I am friendly towards a right-wing (but not Conservative) politics that embraces individualism, contempt for such self-pity as the aforementioned phenomena, etc. But I refuse to be part of the utter intellectual void that is movement conservatism in America.

Originally Posted by Einzige

You have all, more-or-less, missed the point of this thread.

What I oppose is the contemptible class warfare rhetoric of the modern Republican Party, rooted in Nixon's Franklin vs. Orthogonian dualism, the conspiracy theories against the "left-winged media" (said does not exist - a vague nostalgia for the New Deal is basically conservative in an ideological sense), Christian martyrdom complexes, etc.

Again, I am friendly towards a right-wing (but not Conservative) politics that embraces individualism, contempt for such self-pity as the aforementioned phenomena, etc. But I refuse to be part of the utter intellectual void that is movement conservatism in America.

The word "conservative" is now used as a lablel for a wide range of philosophical positions that are often diametrically opposed. Virgil Saari, a long-absent poster we all miss, had it exactly right: we need a rectification of terms. In short, call things what they are, and not something else entirely. Your use of the term is actually the technically correct one: support for an established norm - current or from the recent past. Good luck getting the world to agree. Most of today's so-called conservatives are actually reactionaries .. or would be if the distant past they wish to regain had ever existed in human history. Maybe Aspiratiional Reactionary is better. In any case, they won't have any of it, so it just between us.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

It would be comparable to the creation of the imperial-bureaucratic military ruling class that lasted in china from 1600 bc and did not noticeably decline until the 1700s ad. This would be america's version of that, but steeped in the best positive elements of the american worldview. This in itself would be the vanguard of the creation of a entirely new type of human.

Well we know that someone needs to go and read up on Chinese history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Einzige

You have all, more-or-less, missed the point of this thread.

What I oppose is the contemptible class warfare rhetoric of the modern Republican Party, rooted in Nixon's Franklin vs. Orthogonian dualism, the conspiracy theories against the "left-winged media" (said does not exist - a vague nostalgia for the New Deal is basically conservative in an ideological sense), Christian martyrdom complexes, etc.

Again, I am friendly towards a right-wing (but not Conservative) politics that embraces individualism, contempt for such self-pity as the aforementioned phenomena, etc. But I refuse to be part of the utter intellectual void that is movement conservatism in America.

I think relatively few of us who post here, want to be part of it. If you want to experience a forum that is loaded with these guys and other crazies, try Theology Online.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think relatively few of us who post here, want to be part of it. If you want to experience a forum that is loaded with these guys and other crazies, try Theology Online.

Only restorationism is capable of establishing positive values and ideological consistency and clarity in our nation. In earlier posts i've outlined how a new elite and a new and more equitable society could be created in america. This meritocratic elite would be based on various tech endevours and various holdings accumulated by meritorious service, especially by military service. Children would be taught from early childhood in various technical and practical skills; they would also have survival skills training and military training. With regards to foreign policy the security of america would be ensured by the vassalization of latin america and then the general pacification of the middle east and north africa. In the latter regions, military administrative governorships would be created and settlement zones and settlement cities built to administer these areas although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor. The combination of these endevours would create a new civil-military caste similar to the roman empire or the imperial bureaucratic-military caste that ruled china and was in its prime from the shang through ming dynasties. Although ours will be steeped in the best of the american worldview. A religious revolution would occur too, the state will cultivate relations with the church (mostly securing influence with the papacy) with the restorationist american leadership assuming explicitly both political and religious seniority within the western world. The economy would be reformed around communal-entrepreneural lines in which entepreneural leaders would accumulate wealth which would then be given to the state and distributed to the populace, although the current corporate elite would largely be purged and their assets divided among the rising classes and new entrepreneurs. The overall effect of these policies would ultimately lead to the creation and cultivation of an entirely new kind of human.