Only on the internet.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The best model to ensure a healthy western civilization is the centralized state. The napoleonic wars, World war I and World war II showed what the centralized state can do. It is our nation's destiny to rid the world of threats arrayed against it. To this end the unifification of the anglosphere into a centralized imperial state should be accomplished. The conquest of latin america would be to secure resources and manpower. This should be accomplished with diplomacy as well as force; friendly ties and alliances with spain, portugal and the more powerful latin american nations should accompany the conquest of the lesser states in the region, the main exception to friendly relations with greater latin states is venuzuela, which should be conquered. The aim of this policy is the creation of an anglophone political/cultural alliance with our latin brethren. In addition the conquest of the more promising parts of africa should take place.

The growing threats from the mideast and china is a grave threat to the civilized world. While at present these regions do not seem to be capable of overthrowing the world order, the may be in a position to do so in the future. To counter this, campaigns aimed at the destruction of the threats imminating from these regions are to be launched.

These recommendations are more urgent since we are entering a crisis era. As such moderation proposed by elite canditiates such as hilary clinton is unacceptable, as well as such proposed by the the leadership of both parties, indeed to show moderation in the coming decades is suicidal in my opinion, in a crisis the strong must assert themselves and show their will over the weak, or else they are weak and will perish themselves. Obama and edwards seem to show the nessesary will to make the appropriate domestic reforms, but are seemingly unable to deduce a correct foreign policy. The Grey champion (probably a Joneser or first-wave Xer) must link a correct domestic policy as well as a correct foreign policy in order to succeed.

A correct domestic and foreign policy should be as follows:

1) Try to consolidate with a goal to minimizing the losses to our position as a result of the iraq war. Try to minimize damage to economy due to disasterous previous policies.

2) Focus on rebuilding the basis of our economy based on real investment, foreign policy during this period should be self-concentrationing with internal focus, maintain the military and reorganizes/upgrade forces if possible. Reorganize economy with focus on rebuilding manufacturing-machine tool capabilities.

3) Once economy is stabilized with a basis for growth, focus on the international arena, sign arms control and limitation agreements with russia, china, and others, but do NOT assume foreign compliance with agreements, secretly build-up forbidden capabilities without foreign knowledge. This diplomatic offensive should be accompanied by a massive military buildup. Begin emphasizing to the troops the gravity of the foreign threat, train officers and soldiers emphasizing tactical and strategic competence.

4) Agitate for formation of an anglophone union/union of english-speaking peoples in order to better defend against foreign rogue threats. continue military buildup, continue to emphasize to the troops the gravity of the foreign (arab and chinese) threat. Continue to maintain friendly diplomatic and trade relations with rival powers, launch economic offensive toward latin america.

5) Ideally anglophone unity should be promoted, begin conquest of lesser latin american states and economic offensives toward the more powerful, economic offensive should be directed against third world and regions not in the sphere of influence or rival great powers (russia, china, etc). Try to form alliances with more powerful latin american states as well as with india, strengthen alliances with japan, europe. Sign non-aggression friendship pacts with europe, russia, china, india, arabs, etc. Propose "Grand Bargains" with russia, china to insure their neutrality.

6) Once the conquest of latin america as well as the more economically viable parts of africa is completed, launch preemptive wars with china, islamic world in order to decimate their growing military capabilities.

I think CH86 is going manically nutso again, get the lithium...

Originally Posted by Odin

I think CH86 is going manically nutso again, get the lithium...

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ave! Who did you have in mind for Caesar?

Empire builders always assume they will be in the upper cohort. Whoever it is, will be someone who recognizes CH86's intrinsic genius.

CH86, are you or are you not the love-grandchild of Kissinger, Mussolini, Augustus, and Napoleon? Because together, your policies can be squared in between theirs'. (This is not wholly to insult. In limited spheres each of these people actually accomplished some things; only as a whole were they screwups.)

An effective leader must be one who realizes that the world is divided between strong nations and weaker groups, between those who have power and those who do not and want to take it. The international arena is not a peaceful debating society and never has been, instead picture the stereotypical inner city ghetto divided between rival gangs and project this picture globally and you can approximate the real international situation. If we do not strike the more unscrupulous of our rivals will strike first. There can ultimately be no compromise, if we dont crush them, they will crush us.

The ideal GC would be a leader who understands these dynamics and be willing to take the actions nessessary to ensure the safety an prosperity of the people. He/She should be charismatic enough to convince the people with substance that they are safe and secure putting their well being into his/her hands. Finally he/she must have the ruthlessness and fortitute in war and diplomacy and in general policy at home and abroad.

Begone, spirit of Machiavelli!

(Call my monarchism outdated again and I challenge you to a duel!)

Originally Posted by sean '90

Begone, spirit of Machiavelli!

(Call my monarchism outdated again and I challenge you to a duel!)

1. Machiavelli had both a cynical an and idealistic side. The cynical side, as expressed the The Prince, expressed his horrible experiences (including torture) resulting from the the 4T he suffered through. His more idealistic side showed in is book Discourses on Livy, in which he supports republicanism and sounds like Montesquieu (from where the US founding fathers got the notion of the separation of powers).

2. Your monarchism is a hilarious act of anachronistic romanticism.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

An effective leader must be one who realizes that the world is divided between strong nations and weaker groups, between those who have power and those who do not and want to take it. The international arena is not a peaceful debating society and never has been, instead picture the stereotypical inner city ghetto divided between rival gangs and project this picture globally and you can approximate the real international situation. If we do not strike the more unscrupulous of our rivals will strike first. There can ultimately be no compromise, if we dont crush them, they will crush us.

The ideal GC would be a leader who understands these dynamics and be willing to take the actions nessessary to ensure the safety an prosperity of the people. He/She should be charismatic enough to convince the people with substance that they are safe and secure putting their well being into his/her hands. Finally he/she must have the ruthlessness and fortitute in war and diplomacy and in general policy at home and abroad.

I have no use for amoral Realpolitik. We should be aiming to be the shining city upon a hill, not the playground bully.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Begone, spirit of Machiavelli!

(Call my monarchism outdated again and I challenge you to a duel!)

Monarchism is outdated and so is dueling.

Let's do em anyway.

BANG!

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Empire builders always assume they will be in the upper cohort. Whoever it is, will be someone who recognizes CH86's intrinsic genius.

CH86, are you or are you not the love-grandchild of Kissinger, Mussolini, Augustus, and Napoleon? Because together, your policies can be squared in between theirs'. (This is not wholly to insult. In limited spheres each of these people actually accomplished some things; only as a whole were they screwups.)

CH86 reminds me of the "Praetor" guy from the "Falconist" party. Whatever happened to him?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

CH86 reminds me of the "Praetor" guy from the "Falconist" party. Whatever happened to him?

I was just thinking that same thing. You got your Democrats and your Republicans, Constitution, Libertarian; all based around a certain form of government and then... your Falconists??

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I was just thinking that same thing. You got your Democrats and your Republicans, Constitution, Libertarian; all based around a certain form of government and then... your Falconists??

They still have a website but I don't think recruiting is going so well. Thankfully.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

They still have a website but I don't think recruiting is going so well. Thankfully.

A tripod website. That's a bad sign.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Monarchism is outdated and so is dueling.

Let's do em anyway.

BANG!

Kings are still relevant. Look at Belgium! BANG!

Originally Posted by Odin

2. Your monarchism is a hilarious act of anachronistic romanticism.

Emerson is burning down your house right about now.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Emerson is burning down your house right about now.

Emerson has been 6 feet under for 125 years, I don't he's up to burn down anything.

Oh, and did I mention that the Romanticism sucks?

Originally Posted by sean '90

Kings are still relevant. Look at Belgium! BANG!

Thanks for pointing out the actual use of Kings: the reserve powers, the ability to right the ship and take emergency steps for the good of the country... while having the training and indoctrination and controls and traditions and expectations that work to ensure that the emergency actions ARE for the good of the country. In a properly run constitutional monarchy, the King (or Queen) is an insurance policy on the stability of representative democracy.

The Governor-General of Australia earned Her Majesty's position as Queen of Australia in the constitutional crisis of 1975. Juan Carlos I earned his throne in 1982 by single-handedly defeating the nationalist coup that took the Cortes hostage. If Belgium doesn't break up, it will be because of the intervention of its King.

That's right, Sean, I'm actually defending monarchism. I'm just not sure it's *your* monarchism, because 99% of the monarchs of history were not constitutional monarchs in the least, but autocratic, dictatorial, oligarchic, nepotistic, parasitical, and worst of all, incompetent. There is much to be said for the republican evolution of the Westminster form of government, where the monarch's place is occupied by a carefully chosen, and limited-term, President.

I dearly wish right now that America had some committee of worthies that had the gravitas to say that the government was off the rails and certain things (torture, invasions of privacy, warmongering) had become anathema to the spirit of the Constitution. Many know it but few have the will or power to say it loud enough. For 213 years we had Presidents that could play the role of statemen and yet be active in leading our government. Now we feel the loss when we know the President to be incapable of such a balancing act.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Kings are still relevant. Look at Belgium! BANG!

Do you honestly think I missed?

Catfish'n'cod said "I dearly wish right now that America had some committee of worthies that had the gravitas to say that the government was off the rails and certain things (torture, invasions of privacy, warmongering) had become anathema to the spirit of the Constitution. Many know it but few have the will or power to say it loud enough. For 213 years we had Presidents that could play the role of statemen and yet be active in leading our government. Now we feel the loss when we know the President to be incapable of such a balancing act."

We do, at least in name. Or did. They're called the Supreme Court and they're supposed to be the final authority on when someone is violating the Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue must first be brought before them after all other appeals have been exhausted, and for them to rule objectively on the administration that appointed them while it's still in power may be beyond that capacities of many of them past or present. Though we've had some notable surprises.

I am seriously aghast at the fascist/totalitarian/monarchist leanings of our Millenial members of this post. So ready, willing, and able to oppress the citizenry, and grant priviledge to monied classes and aristocracies. This, however was stated in S&H's books as Millies are bred to be worshipful towards Authority. This is why America is engaged in a wholesale plunge into toalitarianism. The prophets preach it, the Nomads jockey for position in it, and the Heroes fully believe in it. we are so screwed.

Originally Posted by spudzill

I am seriously aghast at the fascist/totalitarian/monarchist leanings of our Millenial members of this post. So ready, willing, and able to oppress the citizenry, and grant priviledge to monied classes and aristocracies. This, however was stated in S&H's books as Millies are bred to be worshipful towards Authority. This is why America is engaged in a wholesale plunge into toalitarianism. The prophets preach it, the Nomads jockey for position in it, and the Heroes fully believe in it. we are so screwed.

You do realize that sean'90 is just a troll right?

That's a 5 hit die creature right? Remeber to use a torch and oil. Acid works too.

Originally Posted by spudzill

I am seriously aghast at the fascist/totalitarian/monarchist leanings of our Millenial members of this post. So ready, willing, and able to oppress the citizenry, and grant priviledge to monied classes and aristocracies. This, however was stated in S&H's books as Millies are bred to be worshipful towards Authority. This is why America is engaged in a wholesale plunge into toalitarianism. The prophets preach it, the Nomads jockey for position in it, and the Heroes fully believe in it. we are so screwed.

There is no fascist/monarchial leaning. They are nutjobs that you can only find on the internet.

From your mouth to God's ears.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

There is no fascist/monarchial leaning. They are nutjobs that you can only find on the internet.

I think you just insulted millions of monarchists with those BS slurs that we are fascists and nutjobs. It is republicans who are the real fascists and nutjobs.

Originally Posted by spudzill

I am seriously aghast at the fascist/totalitarian/monarchist leanings of our Millenial members of this post. So ready, willing, and able to oppress the citizenry, and grant priviledge to monied classes and aristocracies. This, however was stated in S&H's books as Millies are bred to be worshipful towards Authority. This is why America is engaged in a wholesale plunge into toalitarianism. The prophets preach it, the Nomads jockey for position in it, and the Heroes fully believe in it. we are so screwed.

I am not a fascist nor am I totalitarian. I simply belive that we must submit to the authority that God has placed over us. Plus, Americans are idiots.
Do you honestly think Bish voters are capable of self-government?