A Thesis On Humanity's Future


Dirigism A Thesis On Humanity's Future


In opening, I would like my readers to know that this is the first serious attempt I've made in writing a book of kind. While writing has been my passion since childhood, I never made any real attempts to hone my passion outside of fanciful stories written for my own enjoyment. While I warn that my book my seem more like the unorganized ramblings of a lunatic, I urge every one of you who reads this book to do so with a grain of salt and a bit of understanding. I'm not an expert on any of these topics, and I simply seek to give my observation of the systems we live in as well as my opinion on a preferable solution as I see it. Not all of us can be like Tolkien, Chomsky, and Wells. I dedicate this to book to no one but myself, as I feel these thoughts and ideas of mine to be no more relevant to the current sociopolitical and economical status of the world than my vote (and I've never voted as such). If anyone does wish to consider my ideas somewhat important and put them into practice, I would be honored.

But know that I find my own thesis to be wholly unrealistic as it calls upon the unrealistic demand that humans give of themselves freely to a degree almost equally that of a slave, and be content with what they have rather than what they want, on top of being watched constantly. To be honest, this is more of myself putting my personality, thoughts, and mode of reasoning into writing. For dirigism to work, others would have to think, act, and reason as I do, and since all humans are different, dirigism could never succeed in the real world. Perhaps one day other "like-minded" individuals, who like myself, are angry at the world and its people and see a better way at running things, may pick up this book and give it serious consideration. Perhaps they'll settle down on an island somewhere, and build a society that I would have been proud to call my own. Regardless of the outcome, at least they would have given it a try, and that's all that is needed in my view.

Ultimately, dirigism is simply a thesis on how I would have run the world if given the chance, if everyone thought like me. Since I was a kid, it was my opinion that if everyone thought and behaved as I did, then the world would be so much better. Whether or not it would succeed in entirely up to the reader to decide. Besides, isn't that the whole point of you reading this book? As I mentioned before, this is my first serious attempt at righting a book, and if it appears that I am rambling or going off of the topic, or even going into the bizarre, I apologize. I've never been the best when it comes to organizing my thoughts in a rational manner or keeping my opinions to myself when it came to written thought. Anyway, please enjoy the contents, and I do hope that you understand that dirigism could only work if there were more Vivas running around out there.

Without further ado, please enjoy the article! -- Vivaporius, Esq. (I wish)

Chapter I: What is Dirigism?

What is Dirigism? That's a very good question, but not with a precise answer. Dirigism is, simply put, the idea that mankind requires a forceful hand to guide it into the right direction. In fact, that is actual meaning of the name. Dirigism comes from the Latin term dirige, meaning "guide" or "to direct". I chose this term given that mankind quiet literally needs a guiding hand, given the many foolish actions it has taken throughout its history. Looking back, humanity behaves more like a child than anything else. The demands of the average person, especially one hailing from the Western world, is entirely individualistic, with demands for "self-determination" to a ludicrous extent, ranging from how to dress, how to act, how to behave, what to say, and how to think. Like children, humans want everything without the responsibility. We want a say in how our government works, but we don't want to take responsibility for its actions or who we put into office, especially if that person ends up going into a completely unnecessary and illegal war.

Dirigism is simply my way of sweeping away the "Old System" that has run human society into the ground, and replace it with a better system geared to ensuring the best of all worlds. Now, dirigism isn't a new idea. In fact, it is the amalgamation of several ideas, ranging from liberalism, communism, conservatism, heck even fascism, while cutting back on all of the ideas that handicapped them when they were implemented. In short, dirigism is my attempt to create a jack -of-all-trades, though with my own personal spin on it. I dislike democracy. I truly hate it. Democracy gives everyone, no matter how stupid they are, a voice in the running of their government, the one that effects all of us. Because of this, we ended up with fools like George "Dubya" Bush in office, throwing troops all over the globe for "reasons", and accomplishing nothing but expanding terrorism across the globe. Therefore, it is safe to say that dirigism is not intrinsically democratic, and should not be seen as democratic. I believe in a system where only the most suitable individuals should be allowed to vote, and that is what dirigism promotes. A meritocracy.

Such a meritocracy would not be held hostage to the whims of the elites who govern the society. Anyone could advance to the head of state from the rock bottom of the totem pole, so long as they were ready and willing to put forth the effort to achieve that goal. People will work for their share of society’s prosperity, and I envision that nothing will bring this system to ruin. While that is a grand statement and a grand belief, I do not believe it to be perfect or even ideal. There will always be those looking for a shortcut or an easy way out, and while dirigism was designed to limit this behavior, there will no doubt be those who slip through to enjoy the fruits of everyone else’s labor. Alas, we can only hope that dirigism works as I have intended it, but no ideology is perfect, and dirigism no different. The only way to find out is to put the ideology into practice and refine it as we go. There is no other way.

Basically, the best way sum dirigism up is that it is more than just an ideology, but a lifestyle. Dirigism is similar to Islam and Judaism in that it touches upon every part of one's life, from politics, economics, society and culture, the arts, sexuality, and even diet. Dirigism is a way of life that demands more than just a passing interest in its tenants, but full devotion and conviction in the ideology and what it stands for. And though some may think dirigism to be foul in many ways, it is nothing more than a vital medicine. No one takes medicine for its taste, they take it for the cure. Dirigism is the cure to modern society, and as foul-tasting as it may be, it is a cure we as a people need badly. Whether or not you like what I say in this book, I do nothing more than present the hard truths in a frank manner. Either you accept them as they are and make the changes needed, or shield yourself from reality to protect your feelings. That choice is yours and yours alone. Now I leave you to make that decision based on what I have presented to you here.

Chapter II: Failings of the Old System

Now you may be asking yourself why we need a "new system". What was wrong with the "old system"? Certainly we wouldn't need a new system unless the old one has failed. Well it has failed, and I'll tell you why. Almost everything about the old system was broken. There have been too many "grand ideas" and conflicting ideologies throughout human history, with one person believing they had the answer to the perfect government, and another with the same. As I mentioned in the introduction to this book, my idea is no different, but at least I am willing to admit that dirigism is unrealistic. That has not been the case with those who founded many of our current political ideologies in the past. For instance, let us take a look at communism and how it failed spectacularly throughout its own history.

Communism began with some very noble ideas, but ultimately failed because it made too many unrealistic demands with no realistic means by which to accomplish them. It saw tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people killed as the new communist governments attempted to build the perfect "Utopian society" as Karl Marx wrote. Communists tried to accomplish their goals through purges and genocides, attacking any who they felt opposed or hampered their move toward a communist future where no individual wanted for anything, and worked only as much as they wished, with no governments, no taxes, and no wars. Once again a noble venture, albeit an unrealistic one. Communism could not succeed as it depended upon the people to give up their rights to private property and enterprise for the state's benefit, and all being treated equally in terms of economics, even though a doctor and a fast food employee are not equal.

An acquaintance of mine once said that people such as myself, especially those in democratic societies, generally fear the government assisting people for the possibility of it "devolving into scary red socialism". I disagreed with him, though he was right, but not for the same reasons. People don't fear the government providing useful services for the masses in a welfare state, but the needed funds to provide for those services often leads to higher taxation as seen in the Nordic countries, and the general growth of Marxist ideas as a result. As people rely more and more upon welfare and government services, they tend to become protective of those services, leading to their acceptance of socialism in another form, which as Karl Marx himself stated, was a gateway to communism, an ideology that is a known failure.

But communism aside, it was far from being the only broken system out in the world today. Capitalism is another part of the "Old System" dirigism was designed to replace. Now understand, I believe capitalism to have been a highly successful system, given it supports the noble idea of free trade and enterprise. However, it has its own failings as well. Its most glaring defect is that of "being too big to fail", as government rush to the aid of mega-corporations at the expense of the average citizen, taking their tax dollars and throwing them into the pockets of these companies to keep them afloat during times of crisis, even though they were the ones who created the crisis. Another issue is that of being considered individuals, rather than a conglomerate of individuals with vested interests in the legal protection of their company, allowing them to sue private citizens for defamation or "personal injuries".

Communism and capitalism had their own great ideas, but are but faulty in that they went too far in their ideologies to be of direct benefit to the masses, and only to a few individuals, a few chosen elites. Communism took power from the people (ironically what dirigism does) and gave it to but a few within the politburo of the society's communist party and functionaries. The same was true of capitalism, though rather it took the form of a "democratic" society in spite of the fact the elites in a capitalistic system used their vast wealth and resources to buy the very individuals voted into office, invalidating the votes of the masses. Therefore, both systems were systems of oppression and elitism, thinly veiled to have been designed to benefit the masses. So in spite of what parties from both sides may believe, neither system was wholly altruistic, and relied upon a set hierarchy to operate effectively.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this, as humans are by nature, a hierarchical species. My only issue is that both systems and their proponents lie through their teeth in promoting and defending their ideologies, rather than being up front and honest about them. Therefore, make no mistake about this when I say dirigism is a hierarchical system, which relies upon a social ladder in which there are those at the top and those at the bottom. There will be those in power, and those without power. This is but a simple fact of human nature and reality. This was my problem with democracy. Not everyone can have or should have a voice in their government. For a government to work, it must be efficient, and for it to be efficient, it must operate with only one voice or a handful of voices, not millions or God forbid, billions. This is why I believe communism to have been the more efficient ideology, it operated with a strong leader who could act without issue, while a democratic leader had a system to go through. As U.S. President Harry Truman himself admitted: "Where you had an efficient government, you had a dictatorship."

And that is why dirigism exists. To bring the best of all worlds together. Communism had the better government while a capitalist democracy had the better economy. Communism operated without checks and balances on the government's power, allowing it to act and act quickly, while a democratic society had too much bureaucracy to go through, hampering its ability to act effectively. However, communism was too centrally planned, preventing resources from being exploited effectively, while a capitalist society promoted the individual acquisition and exploitation of useful resources. In combining the two and removing their faults, we could see a useful blend of ideas that could propel the ability of the government and the economy to work, but in doing so, we end up with fascism. Pretty funny how that works. Well have no fear, there is no Jewish genocide in dirigism. Let's move on shall we.

Next is the justice system. The laws of the land have long been bastardized by special interest groups such as Zionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, and social justice groups such as students. I could go into detail as to their roles within the judicial systems of the world, but that point will come later on. Judges have also been bought by political parties, joining political parties when they should remain neutral like any good symbol of the courts, and pushing their own agendas as a result of their personal beliefs. Finally, there is the even present blight of "equality of outcome", the belief that two groups should have the same outcome even if one person is more qualified than the other, the result of social justice. Furthermore, in order to even have equality of outcome, the system must by definition, discriminate against those with the ability to achieve based on their own qualifications to let others without them to succeed. This comes at the expense of "equality before the law", where two people can go through the same system, and based on their qualifications, and will rise and fall accordingly. Other issues I shall discuss later on will be sociological issues, chiefly, feminism, atheism, and "meism" – the rampant spread of individualism at any cost.

Chapter III: Economics

Dirigism's economic policies can best be described as part planned and part free, combining two of the most historically opposed economic theories for, or in short, a mixed economy. I'll start by outlining the benefits of both and why a mixed economy is superior to a planned market and a free market. First of all, being quiet honest, no one knows everything, not the government and not the people. However, it is from this statement both theories had their arguments. A planned economy argues in favor of giving the government control over the economy, as it would have the knowledge and resources to build the sectors of the economy as they were needed. While this was a boon for industry such as under Stalinist Russia, it resulted in a decaying economy, as once the infrastructure was built and the people employed, the economy would begin to stagnate and required the government's authorization to do anything. Such economies were undynamic and sluggish in growth, and never performed well outside of initial industrialization, and saw widespread employment, but wide-scale poverty because of low pay and a poor standard of living.

Moving on to free market economies, the main argument was that the people should have control over their own money and economic futures, as they knew where the money was and where to invest. This resulted in a fast-paced, highly dynamic economy with amazing growth rates and high incomes. However, the problem with such a system was that, whereas the state employed anyone out of work in a planned economy, it was left to corporations and small businesses to seek out and employ people from a long roster of individuals fighting over the same position. The desire to cut corners and increasing the net income of a business, led to bad practices, such as the Ford Pinto, in which Ford refused to spend about $11 to replace the rear bumper of the car to protect its fuel tank, leading to the stereotypical Ford Pinto exploding from a tip in the back, leading to dozens of easily preventable deaths, all because of corporate greed. Thus, while a free market is best for economic growth, the freedom of the corporations and the dangers of free enterprise, result in high unemployment and poverty and a huge wealth gap as the corporate executives walk away with most of the money gained from unethical practices at the expense of the workers.

A mixed economy brings the best of both worlds while helping to neutralize some of the negative aspects. A mixed economy is something of a compromise of the two extremes of the planned and free market economies, giving the people wide berth to execute their own economic ventures, while giving the government the required latitude to watch over and regulate the economy effectively. With a strong government system, corporations can be kept in line, and unlike in many Western nations, they can also be kept out of the government itself, helping to prevent lobbying systems from forming and buying the very people responsible for keeping corporations away from bad practices that harm their workers and the economy. By allowing the people to carry on with their economic lives, the government also allows the populace to expand sectors of the economy that existed beyond its purview. For instance, I doubt the U.S. government would have ever thought of something as revolutionary as Facebook and Apple. However, though a certain degree of government regulation, you would see companies like Facebook being forced to pay their taxes properly rather than exploit the system to avoid paying what they owe to the government.

With regards to the wealth gap, one most realize that such a topic is a two-edge sword. The issue for most people is that they are lazy, refusing to take into account their own actions as the reason they haven't achieve any of their goals. For instance, most people are more content with blaming the wealthy for their poverty, when most of the world's wealthy are in fact first-generation, or "new money" millionaires or billionaires, having worked hard to get their wealth. Sad to say, but many find it easier to take the wealth of those above rather than work for it themselves, calling the wealthy "selfish" for not sharing their money, and calling themselves "altruistic" when they take that money. In such a society, the economy cannot bloom, as you rob the very ones fueling the growth of the national economy in the long-run. Dirigist principles help to prevent this cycle in the first place.

Under dirigism, one is paid according to the worth of their work, ensuring that the wealthy become wealthy as a direct result of their occupation and drive to get to that occupation. Additionally, an individual will be compensated in accordance to the important of their occupation within the community. For instance, a doctor would naturally be compensated a fair amount given that their occupation requires many hours, even days without sleep, a particular skill-set and education, and a high degree of devotion, and their job is one which directly benefits the community's health, making doctors a highly-valuable member of the state. Farmers, though historically considered an underclass of society, are equally as important as doctors, as they are responsible for the nation's crops and livestock, ensuring the health of the people as well, and also requiring a high degree of devotion and a specific skill-set to pursue a career in agriculture. Therefore, doctors and farmers would be compensated a fair amount for their work.

Now, let's move on to debt, interest, and lending, the cream of economics as one might put it. I'm no economist, but even I understand that interest rates serve no other purpose than to place on in debt to make to pay the lender/creditor for extended periods of time, all with the aim of gaining a profit from a loan. This is quite sinister as the entire concept was designed with the intention of getting money out of the debtor in addition to the original loan given. While many might view this as perfectly acceptable, and indeed it is, on the national level, this only leads to widespread poverty and out of control spending as governments continue to borrow money to pay off the debts they incurred from the interest rates of previous loans, a never-ending cycle. Take the Federal Reserve of the United States for example. The government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, which provides each dollar given with an interest rate. So this means that if the United States government borrows money which has an immediate debt attached to it, meaning that the money supply of the Federal Reserve must be expanded constantly to pay off the ever expanding debt of the money borrowed, a cycle that runs ad nauseam. At some point this cycle will become unsustainable, and collapse in on itself, resulting in an economic crisis.

The thing about debt and interest is that it was designed to enslave a person to the will of the creditor. The interest on a loan could see a person paying it off for the rest of their life, even if the loan itself had been paid off. Effectively, this transforms the debtor into a form of income to the lender. If the debtor ever decides that the interest is impossible to pay off and refuses to make his or her payments, then the lender is legally capable of pressing charges to either put the person in prison, or simply take everything the debtor had. Most forms of interest are a nefarious way of rendering human beings into investments; invest in a property and watch it pay you back for ages. While interest has a role in society, one that helps at times, at other times, it is simply a move by the lender to turn you into a cash-making machine he never has to maintain or lose sleep over if you “malfunction” one day by chewing a bullet so to speak.

Now, let us discuss taxes. People hate them, and governments love them. People complain about the income tax, the sales tax, the property tax, the gift tax, and whatever ad hoc taxes the government of the day decides to place on the people. While taxes play a vital role in the economy of the modern nation-state, and contribute to the ability of the state to operate effectively, many taxes seem geared toward funding foolish goals and programs that help no one. The Social Security program of the United States is one such example. While it served a noble purpose in its early history, today, it is massive, bloated, and inefficient, and serves more as a tumor than a safety net. The longer people live and the sooner they go into retirement, the fewer people are in the workforce, and the high taxes must be to accommodate the new retirees. As the workforce shrinks, the number of taxable earners shrinks as well, meaning that more people are burdened with higher taxes per capita because someone's parents simply decided they were tired of working, and would get on the system to rid the retirement wave into their graves. As a result, the system grows and the taxes grow with it.

One could liken this to two circus tightrope walkers – one experienced, one novice. The experienced one has been walking on tightropes for ages now, while the novice has done so for only a few months. While the experienced one is clearly capable of working without a safety net, he decides he wants to use it simply because he feels like it, leaving the novice without one. Now the circus couldn't possibly leave the novice without a safety net, so it has to buy a new one because the experienced tightrope walker insisted on using the existing safety net. Now imagine other experienced tightrope performers following the example of the first individual, and they too start demanding a safety net. The circus must pay for more nets, and has to dip into the wages of the novice performers to do so. Thus, while the experienced performer gets to use a safety net without actually needing it, the novice is the one who ultimately suffers. So too is it with Social Security. As more physically able individuals pass the retirement age, they check out of the workforce, and younger workers must carry the burden for individuals who are very capable of working, leading to higher taxes on the worker population, and an easy ride for the older population.

This is but one example of the sad use of taxes, and the inefficiency of the system as a whole. While a safety net is very well worth the money, many exploit it, and the system which supports the safety net is burdened. Taxes have a place in society, but not if it is being misused by the masses. I would simply prefer a system where the government controls the wealth of society as a whole, still helping the people, but have a system that doesn't need to be micromanaged. I shall expand upon this later on. However, I will briefly touch on trading and autarky. Trading is a useful thing in a globalized society, however, it tends to be unstable given two factors: greed and fear. Futures revolve around buying that which doesn't exist, allowing a group to capitalize on a product when and if it sells well. If a product is produced with the goal of fulfilling a perceived demand, and the traders sell their stocks because one of them got a bad chill, then the entire product becomes worthless, and the resources are wasted. Greed leads people to buy what they don't need. Countless individuals are fleeced as a result of them thinking they could get something for nothing, and the whole market suffers as individual traders steal from foolish buyers, whose money is wasted on a scam. This may sound like gibberish, but it should be noted I am not a trader. This is simply my honest opinion on a glaring issue in trading and finance.

It is my honest belief that money, as the Apostle Paul put it, is the root of all evil. More specifically, greed and the desire to acquire more material wealth, is harmful to one's self and those around him or her. We as a society put money above all else, making it a goal that we wish to achieve within our lifetimes, but will never accomplish. At least though the majority that is. My solution to this problem is to do something radical. I wish to remove money as an object for good. Now hear me through. Look at the world and the people who form up its workforce. Hundreds of millions of hard-working individuals, who often make a few pennies an hour for back-breaking work. That isn't fair, but companies pay this to its laborers because they know they can get away with it. As I advocate for a meritocracy that doesn't care how rich your daddy was, what better solution to this glaring issue than abolishing one outdated system, and replacing it with another? I propose creating a form of payment known as work credits; a novel idea if I say so myself. Work credits would help solve the problem of the so-called "living wage", the "slave wage", and the heads of companies earning huge amounts of money well beyond what most would consider appropriate.

Basically, work credits are given as an "allowance", given to those who work for their piece of society's pie. Going hand-in-hand with a caste system I've proposed in a later chapter, the amount of work credits earned by an individual would be determined by their occupation and caste, as well as their rank within that caste, ensuring that all members are rewarded based on their contributions. Further, a system of work quotas representing a day's worth of work, be it producing a set number of goods, or involvement in a complex project of some sort. A team of workers would be responsible for either meeting or exceeding this quota, and their payment would hinge on their success. An incentive would be the individual performance of the workers themselves, and the effect it would have on the others should one of them either hamper the progress of the others, or simply do little to contribute to the quota as a whole. Because of this system, individuals would be given an allowance based on their actual contributions rather than their positions. While one's position would certainly play a role in the amount one earns, it would not be the dominating factor. Effectively, if you want to eat, then you have to work. And if you work hard, then you eat well.

Chapter IV: Politics

Now I speak of politics with a voice of anger and disgust. This is the subject of which I find the most disappointing. Humanity has tried nearly every form of government possible, ranging from democracies, monarchies, anarchies, communist states, fascist states, technocracies, and so on and so on. We have tried everything, and yet we still believe that there are more options. These aside, my anger also comes from the fact that for most people, governments are good until they not. For instance, democracy is “the best and most progressive” form of government as preached by the Western world. Yet, when a democracy, the rule of the many that is, passes laws that a minority dislikes, then it is “tyranny of the majority”. Democracy is good until it is “bad”. This is what I meant when I said that humans cannot rule themselves, because they do not know what it is they want. Democracy is bad because it “forces” the rules of the many on the few. Yet, when it is something “progressive” such as abortion and gay marriage, then the minority is in the right, and the wants of the many, the base of the democratic system, are irrelevant. The entire concept of democracy flipped on its head simply because the few don’t like the rules. An entire governmental system discarded for the sake of a passing trend.

A shame and a sham if I have ever seen one. Democracy has other faults as well. One glaring fault is the fact that anyone can vote. This is a major problem, as it allows the most ignorant and incompetent members of society to have a say in a political decision that they know nothing about. Look at the events following September 11th 2001. The people willingly gave up their rights to privacy, fair trial, transparency, and freedom of speech, simply because of the fact some foreigners flew planes into our buildings. No one looked at the fact that much of the event may have been faked, such as four nearly indestructible blackboxes going “missing”, all the while nine, flimsy plastic ID cards in almost pristine condition, survived thousand degree heat, and had more than enough information to place the blame on some Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern individuals. No one considered the fact that their government had been planning for operations in the region based on a “mass casualty” event in the United States, and used 9/11 to get its wars. The people didn’t care. America had been attacked, and it was time to fight.

This resulted in nothing but hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of entire countries, the rise of international terrorism on a scale never before seen, and the restriction of rights once taken for granted. People thought with their hearts rather than with their brains, and their government took advantage of them. And worse still, the people voted for the same man who had planned all of it a second time. Mission accomplished. This is why I oppose democracy. The common citizens have no understanding of politics or global events outside of what their media, largely steered by the government, tells them. Because of this, the people will vote with knee-jerk reactions, based on lies and fear, thinking little of the long-term consequences of their actions and those of the government they have elected. When people fly planes into your cities, rather than asking “Why did they do it”, the response of some is instead, “They hate our freedom/democracy/country”. They give little thought as to the policies of their elected officials in the countries of the attackers, and do little to resolve them. They refuse to take responsibility for the government they elected, as it would mean accepting responsibility for being a poorly-educated or poorly-informed voter. Their pride gets in the way of their reasoning abilities, and this only serves to exacerbate the problem. When Bush couldn’t (or wouldn’t) find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, rather than accepting that he was wrong, and sticking to the proposed limited mission of removing the Taliban, he switched to nation-building to cover up his failures, erroneously reasoning that if the United States left, Osama would just return.

This was a democratically-elected official, who lied to the American people to wage a war in Iraq for profit, killing 6,000 American soldiers in Iraq and 4,000 more in Afghanistan by the time of his leaving office. This doesn’t take into account the 500,000 Iraqis and 100,000 Afghanis killed in the two conflicts Bush lied about to start, all for the sake of “democracy”. This was the man the American people elected. Their ignorance only served to spread death and destruction, and their governments and their politicians took advantage of that. And this says nothing about the lobbying organizations which help steer American foreign policy within a democracy. As any knowledgeable individual understands, a democracy involves a person electing someone to govern their state on their behalf, listening to their needs and concerns, and doing all in their power to address them. Lobbying organizations completely undermine that system. Technically, bribery is supposed to be illegal within the American government. However, by lobbying a politician, a form of “legalized bribery” has been allowed to exist. These lobbying firms offer politicians “gifts” and “votes” in exchange for pushing the government’s decision-making in their favor. Let’s look at AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as an example of a lobbying organization within the American government.

AIPAC was founded by Zionists – radical Jews, Evangelicals, and communists – looking to get the American government to more directly assist the State of Israel politically, financially, and militarily. Several wealthy individuals with a stake in Israel’s survival as a state, donated to the lobbying group, and used that money to buy support from groups of people outside of the government, to facilitate the buying of politicians within the government easier. Whenever a politician campaigning for a seat in the Congress or looking to get into the White House needed money for his or her campaign, all they needed to do was say they would support the State of Israel and the Zionist movement unconditionally, and AIPAC would furnish them with millions of dollars, and that politician would never have to worry about campaign finances ever again. And true to their word, they would ignore American interests and pursue policies that were geared toward fulfilling Israeli interests instead. A notable result of this has been the ire of the Arab population, an entire region of the globe hating the United States and rightfully so, and an Israeli stranglehold on American decision-making via its connections with AIPAC, and the politicians it bought. A single lobbying group with near-complete control over the American government. And this is to say nothing of the other lobbying groups in the country.

Now, on another subject, I shall speak of the inability of the American citizen to decide what they want out of their government. Americans often talk about how “democratic” and “free” they are, and how our government is the best in the world. Yet, these are the same people who will turn around and whine about how the government is “trying to take our guns”, and will complain about how they need “a second revolutionary war”. Americans brag about their government, then turn around and talk about how they need to destroy it. If this is the case, a valid question may be asked. If the government is so horrible, why wage countless wars to spread that government around the globe? Most Americans wouldn’t be able to answer that. Americans cannot decide whether or not their government is good or bad. Either it is fulfilling its duties, or it is secretly trying to take rights and liberties away from its citizens. And when you confront them with this fact, they will say you either hate your country or support the terrorists. When Fox News asked Harvard students, highly-educated individuals with some basic understanding of foreign affairs, if their government was in the wrong or contributing to global terrorism, the students said yes. Then the members of this media outlet lost it and said the students needed to “join the military”, “educate themselves”, or “be more appreciative of their liberties”. They wouldn’t address the fact that the students were right, they wanted to say they were wrong because many of those anchors voted Republican, and therefore most likely voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. They proved that my previous statement was correct.

Yet, these same individuals were the first to complain about how bad the government was for “infringing” upon individual rights. They voted for the man who passed the laws allowing for such legal actions, yet complained when the man they didn’t vote for used the laws his predecessor passed. Democracy is inherently flawed as it cannot appeal to everyone, and everyone complains and tries to undermine the government they didn’t vote for. Either the system works or it doesn’t. I don’t care if it does or doesn’t, because you cannot make everyone happy. Dirigism won’t pull the wool over anyone’s eyes so far as a democracy is concerned. Dirigism is not a democratic system, and it was never intended to be. It isn’t trying to make anyone happy. Like a well-run family, dirigism is not concerned with giving everyone a voice, but doing what is right for everyone. Any wise parent knows that their family is not or should not be a democracy. An older child with some experience and knowledge into the dynamics of the household may contribute to the decision-making or voice their concerns, but they do not determine the actions of the parents, who ultimately know what is right for the family as a whole. The average person is like a child when it comes to politics. They know nothing, yet present themselves as if they do. They are uneducated in the world of decision-making, and therefore are highly unqualified when it comes to determining who should govern the masses.

My solution to some of these issues is that of terms. Now currently, in many nations, you can run for a position in politics, and even if you are a terrible leader or problem solver, you can get into office without too much difficulty if you can woo the public well enough. Indeed, in the United States, many people vote for the same congressperson over and over again, with little to no idea as to what platform they stand on, what their actions in office have been, or even what their name is. Yes, in the United States, the average American can name all of the Kardashian sisters, but can't tell you who their local representative is. Such individuals would not be allowed to vote without passing an exam on what their politicians views were, what they plan to do, and how they plan to carry out their promises. Likewise, politicians wouldn't be allowed to run for office time after time without passing qualification exams to ensure they understand their electorate, government policies, and foreign affairs, or whatever relevant information for their office would be. Additionally, they would be subject to "up-or-out" rules; you either move up the chain of command, or you are removed from your office so as to make way for a more worthy individual. An alternate would be for them to stay in their position, but only if they proved they qualified for that office by passing the relevant exams to ensure they understand their duties, and aren't just holding down a seat in government.

As for the topic of pensions and salaries, my solution is simple. If the nation's economy performs well and the people are happy, your salaries remain the same and may be increased as a reward, if you perform poorly, you either lose your job or see a decrease in work credits. Now on the subject of who would lead this dirigist society, it would be the most qualified individual. This process would be that of elimination. In accord with the "up-or-out" system, you will move up the chain of command, until you are a member of the legislature, often with voters choosing from among one of three individuals for each administrative bloc. Within the legislature, all members would be subject to exams to determine three of the best performing politicians within it, and in a vote within that legislative body, made up of the best performing members of government, will choose the individual they view as the most capable out of the three candidates. This individual would win through a simple majority of the votes. If there is a tie, the candidate with the least votes is dropped, and the two finalists will be put to a vote once again. The incumbent Supreme Director would hold the tie-breaking vote, and the successor chosen. As the Supreme Director was the most capable individual during his time as leader, his vote would naturally have the weight to decide and finalize who should succeed him, and would be respected as such.

Chapter V: Society

In my honest opinion, society is a mess. Think about it. How many people say that want to do or be something, only to find out they can't do it for a number of reasons, ranging from the sad, the foolish, the unfair, to the reasonable? Individualism only adds to this mess. Many people are so determined to have their way that they harm themselves and others to accomplish it. People have been given the freedom to choose for themselves since the dawn of time, and they have either wasted or squandered their freedoms. A man who is a skilled artists becomes a murderer. A women who is a good leader becomes a housewife. A child with a dream instead has it ripped away by their parents or their society. Other times it is just an average person with an unnoticed talent who lives a life never truly embracing and tapping their potential. A waste if you ask me. For this and many other reasons, I propose the radical. I propose a caste system. One that accommodates most known professions, and cuts back on those that could best be described as "useless". I make this suggestion because it is the best way to exploit the talents of the human race without wasting them on missed chances.

Now some might balk at this idea. "People would never accept a caste system! It is discriminatory by nature!" Well yes it is discriminatory by nature. It's supposed to be. Just because you want to be a politician doesn't mean that you should. Once again, look at George W. Bush. We gave him the right to run for President of the United States, and he ultimately lied to the American people to get into two wars that killed tens of thousands. Now he walks the world doing whatever he wants believing that he was a good president, while millions still suffer from the aftermath of his decisions. A caste system would eliminate those individuals from the list of potential leaders, ensuring only the best and brightest are given the opportunity to led. This would be expanded by ensuring that all people are given the ability to choose a profession, not that they feel is right for them, but that is right for them. A man with great artistic skills may want to be a soldier, but his talents would be better spent as a state-funded painter or sculptor. Sounds oppressive, true. But we can't send people off to die when they could be better used somewhere else.

On the second issue of a caste system limiting freedoms, it should be noted that humans are by nature, a hierarchical civilization. There will always be those ruling and those who are ruled, regardless of what some may wish to believe or want to be true. A caste system simply streamlines the hierarchy in such a way that rulership and society are functional and efficient. The technology and understanding of human psychology we possess today makes such a caste system possible and necessary. Unemployment would be combated this way as well, with individuals no longer competing over a position of employment, but selected for their skills and placed within that position. Those without the skills would be placed in another area of work that would either serve as short-term or long-term employment based on their educational and employment history within their caste. The caste system itself would be divided into six castes which I believe are enough. These are the Bureaucracy, Intelligentsia, Priesthood, Artisans, Soldiery, and Laborers.

The Bureaucracy would be responsible for legislative and judicial occupations, the Intelligentsia for science, medicine and education, the Priesthood for spirituality and social health, the Artisans for skilled and artistic occupations, the Soldiery for military roles, and the Laborers for unskilled and general employment positions. This would eliminate the confusion of one seeking a road to go down early in life, but giving them a comprehensive list of occupations open to them. The laborer caste would always serve as a cushion for those who don't make the cut, but the other castes would always remain open to those willing to work hard to fit the mold. Each caste would be divided into guilds, be they judges, lawyers, and clerks for the bureaucracy, or farmers, miners, and caregivers in the laborers. Naturally, given that no occupation is just one particular job or skill-set, each guild would be further sub-divided into niches. For example, the doctors' guild of the Intelligentsia would be divided into neurologist, cardiologist, and pediatrician niches, and so on with the other guilds.

Now, as to how this system would work. From birth up until their preadolescence, all children would be taught in line with the best education standards available to them. This phase would consist of basic information any good citizen ought to know. As to the details of that education, this will be expanded upon in a later chapter. Following this general education, the second phase where the caste system would come into play begins. At the age of possibly twelve or thirteen, children would be enrolled in a caste-based "preparatory school", where they would be given an education and training in the roles available to them should they join that caste. Now, it is important to acknowledge that teachers and parents would play an important role in this area, as not everyone can join the intelligentsia, while not everyone is suited to the lifelong rigors of the soldiery. Emphasize on the very permanent decision the child would be making would be given, ensuring that the caste a child either joins freely or is enrolled in by their elders, would be a decision that that child could live with and accept for the rest of their life.

The reason that a permanent caste role would be vital, is that humans naturally have little understanding as to the role they wish to play in society, as well as the lack of direction in their lives. While it is understandable that some would find this outrageous, understand also that not everyone becomes a doctor or an astronaut when they grow up, and some roles in society must be filled. We can't just import cheap labor from overseas because of the majority of our people don't want to pick oranges under the blazing sun. A simple fix to this problem is the wage for the position. Returning to the subject of picking oranges, traditionally, such a role has been fulfilled by poorly-paid and unskilled workers. The fix to this would be the use of the work credit to compensate individuals for their backbreaking work as they ought to be compensated. After all, in a free market, harvesting oranges is not a well-paying job. Under dirigism, one would receive proper payment for work given. This would make some unpleasant roles within the laborer caste more welcoming to those required to fill the positions.

Naturally, because of the vast number of individuals filling these castes, a system of management would be required, as well as an indicator of rank and status within the castes. For this, I have suggested a few arrangements. Within the laborer caste once again, not every individual would be a farmer or have the education required to perform in such a role. Likewise, not every laborer is going to be a miner or a janitor. Rather, the castes would be divided into what I like to call "niches". These niches would be the equivalent of subdivisions of one's caste, occupations if you will, with individuals being assigned too or training for a particular niche within their given caste. Within the artisan caste for instance, niches within the caste would include carpenters, artists, dancers, jewelers, tailors, and actors, as well as a wide variety of other roles. The same would be true of every other caste within the dirigist social system. Furthermore, within these niches would be further divisions, such as doctors, who consist of general practitioners, heart surgeons, pediatricians, and others.

This system would ensure that caste leadership would be able to determine what their manpower needs were, as well giving individuals a wide variety of life choices to choose from. Regarding caste leadership, the caste members would ranked, ensuring that there was a clear line of authority and communication within a caste and niche. The basic ranking system would start with aspirants and initiates, and move up to higher-ranked members, with titles befitting their status. One's rank would allow them access certain resources and luxuries, more as a way of rewarding them for their services to the well-being of the state and the people as a unit. The benefits of the caste system and the ranks within it, would be that of camaraderie and a sense of belonging. The idea that one was a part of a group that had a clear mission statement and a goal to accomplish, and knowing that they had a hand in the successes and rewards given to them, would help to cut back on anti-social behavior, criminal tendencies, and even depression and suicide. The benefits as a whole outweigh any of the perceived losses by those so keen to focus on the culture of unhinged individualism and "meism".

Indeed, the introduction of the "work cadre" is another part of dirigist society I wish to touch upon. Often, when individuals go to work, they tend to form bond with their co-workers, though many don't either out of fear of embarrassment or rebuke. My aim would be to bring into the workplace and society as a whole, the "team spirit" that permeates both sports and the military. Humans are social creatures, and bringing them together wherever possible helps to facilitate the developments of that individual as a person, as well as any projects they are assigned too. People will often marry those who they work with, or who they know through their friends, typically co-workers. A notable policy would be to tie one's work credit allowances, rewards, and punishments, to the performance of their cadre. This effectively creates a "sink or swim" attitude within that group, pushing the cadre to work as a team and share in the rewards or maledictions as a group. Such a policy would further bind the members of a cadre together, and increase their desire to push on for the group rather than for their individual concerns. The fear of their comrades suffering for their behavior or actions, as well as their desire to see all benefit as a group, will hopefully shape them into valuable model citizens.

Chapter VI: Religion

I will say right now that religion has an important role in human society and culture. We as humans are by nature, a spiritual species. No amount of vitriolic antithesis rhetoric or anticlerical violence will remove this fundamental truth. Time and time again, attempts have been made throughout recorded history, to either suppress or outright demolish religious ideologies, places of worship, or the adherents themselves, either out of disgust for their beliefs, competition over the "true" faith, or simple fear over the power of the worshipers. Indeed, human spirituality is a powerful force in our modern civilizations today. I for one believe that it was placed into humans to desire to worship a god or gods, by an intelligent creator. Even now, in the most advanced and developed nations today, such as China, South Korea, and the United States, the religious are growing in number, even when some believe that current trends would dictate otherwise. However, the problem religion faces today is threefold. What role should religion play in modern society? Is religion compatible with scientific knowledge as we know it? And which religion is the true religion? These questions I will attempt to address, as well as adding my own–what role does religion play in dirigism?

Humans need religion, this much is a known fact. If this were not the case, then religion would not have gained the level of popularity and influence it has over the course of human history. Even in places where the concept of god, faith, and religion have been outlawed, such as in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China during the Cultural Revolution, the moment the pressure was removed or the curtains lifted, a resurgence in theism could always be witnessed. In China alone, Christianity has been growing at such a fast pace, that the communist government there has been persecuting the Christian population and destroying their churches, even in spite of its constitution allowing for the freedom of religion. If one were to take a look at South Korea, atheism has been on the decline, and Christianity on the rise, a trend that has been constant since the 1980s. The example of South Korea is of great importance, as unlike many other nations in the world, the rise of religious adherents is found predominately within the younger population, many of whom are well-off, highly educated, and affluent in certain communities, a far cry from the stereotypical "ignorant and impoverished" believers the atheist community in some nations have described.

The idea I hold is that religion would be a required part of any dirigist community, a form of glue that holds the society together along with the ideals of dirigism. Christianity would be the primary religion advocated by dirigism, given its universality and well-understood teachings. While many falsehoods preached by some churches, such as the concept of hellfire, the rapture, and most disturbingly, the trinity, would have to be denounced and clarified, Christianity is the best religion to work with as the bedrock of a well-functioning dirigist society. The importance of religion cannot be understated, as it has often been the unifying factor in civilizations the world over. Even if some societies were to collapse, when compensating for denominations within a religion, the faith shared by the people of a community has held them together as a group, and often served as the institution in which the people rallied around when the proper authorities were nowhere to be found.

The best example of the aforementioned point made, is that of Mormonism. When the Mormons were expelled from their towns and farms in the Eastern United States, first from New York, then Illinois, and later Missouri, were the governor authorized what amounted to a genocide against the Mormon population, the Mormons rallied behind their faith and their religious leaders, and marched off for Utah. There, even without a formal government in the more traditional sense, the Mormons were united in faith and their belief in the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Likewise, I seek to replicate this truth in dirigism. While I don't wish for dirigism to be the religion of the people, I seek for the religion advocated by dirigism, Christianity to be specific. Religion gives people hope, and while atheists like to write off religion as a crutch to hold up "irrational" individuals, it is often those who can buy happiness or leave their situations who state this, or are just unhappy to begin with, and don't wish to give religion any credit as a source of happiness for its adherents.

Often, detractors of religion wish to cite it as the source of all the world's woes. These people often ignore the fact that atheistic states have been the cause of the most devastating losses of life in human history, such as the atheistic regimes of Mao (70 million deaths), Stalin (20 million deaths), Kim Il-sung (2 million deaths), Pol Pot (2 million deaths), and Mengistu (1.7 million deaths). Indeed, communist governments with state atheism as an official policy, have been responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people just in the last century. If one were the look at the Encyclopedia of Wars, a comprehensive list of all recorded conflicts throughout human history, the volume is very clear in showing that only 7% of all wars and 2% of all casualties of war can be attributed to religious conflicts. All others have had secular causes. One would be hard pressed to prove that World War II had anything to do with religion. It is my personal belief that atheism is more dangerous that religion, in that it cannot succeed as an institution, unless it forces others to denounce their faiths. Just ask yourself; If religion is the source of human suffering, and people don't want to give up their beliefs, what do atheists plan to do about the 6.3 billion theists? Dwell on that for a moment.

Chapter VII: Law and Justice

Now it is well-known that the judicial system of many nations are corrupt, ineffective, or outright farces. Indeed, many judges are held up as impartial arbiters of the law, though many execute their own will or that of their parties rather than that which is just. In other areas, sentencing may be too light or too heavy, while others are not punished at all. One doesn't need a crystal ball to know that the judicial systems of the United States and other major countries require reform, but in what shape should that reform come in? To that, I wish to answer, and provide my thoughts on the subject of justice, especially as it will no doubt be required even in a dirigist society. However, as in many other areas of dirigism, much self-sacrifice would be required of its adherents given that as explained earlier, many people too obsessed with their own self-gratification, will seek to avoid giving what is due to the law, be it their compliance, their resources, their time, or their knowledge.

First of all, it should be important to note that no judicial system will work 100% of the time. I aim to make a dirigist judicial system work at least eighty or ninety percent of the time. Though there will be those who are caught by law enforcement though they may be innocent, we cannot toss aside a system that works better than another simply because we want to feel good about ourselves and the fact that we saved one innocent person at the expense of ten guilty ones. If the death of one innocent individual will stop ten guilty individuals, then I would be happy to throw the lever for their execution if it means bringing about justice for the other ten. Good people die all of the time in the pursuit of justice. Though we can always decrease the number caught up in the pursuit, we as mere human beings, will never be able to eliminate that margin of error, and the sooner we acknowledge that as a basic part of our reality, we will always have O.J. Simpsons and George Zimmermanns.

From my point of view, the law should have no mercy. While there may be those who recoil at the idea of not having a merciful court, I believe it is our lax stance on crime and punishment which leads to the recidivism rate we currently have in the United States. A single line of punishment for each crime, with simple tiers to judge them universally, would aid us greatly in dealing with criminals. For instance, let us look at a murderer and another person accused of manslaughter. The murderer has taken another human life, yet in many states, would only face 20 years to life for his or her crime. Only in a few states would they be executed, the rightful punishment. A person responsible for manslaughter, an unintended murder, would naturally receive a lower sentence, and while I agree they should not be punished harshly for their action, they are still responsible for the death of a person, and their crime should be punished, whether intended or not.

To simplify, for capital offenses, death is the only just punishment. Swift and effective. Murder, rape, arson, treason, and kidnapping should all have the same outcome. Death. For more minor crimes such as thief, battery, and the like, these should be dealt with using more mild sentences. There should be no reason we are supporting hundreds of thousands of criminals in our prisons for decades on taxpayer money. We kill the truly corrupt, and we punish those who stepped beyond the laws of the land. Furthermore, prisoners should have no rights. You broke the law, so you are stripped of your privileges as a citizen within that law. Your right for appeal is denied, you will receive no plea bargains, your life is at the mercy of the state, which acts on the behalf of the people under its care. When you harm the people, you harm the state, and the state is the tool by which the people survive and are supported within dirigism.

Next on the issue of the law is surveillance. People fear being watched, and while that fear is justified in the modern days of CCTVs, wiretapping, and "enhanced interrogation", the authorities often do these things in a sense that they are protecting the people however heavy-handed their actions may be. I have no doubt that your average NSA or CIA employee went to work today thinking that they were part of the shadowy monolithic force we call our government, and helping to oppress their fellow citizens. As strange it may sound, many within these organizations believe they are protecting Americans, and the means by which they do so may not be pretty or good for public relations, but they are effective. While you can disagree with this assessment, I believe that their actions are worthy of praise though I do not wish to be on the receiving end. Mass surveillance would be effective in a dirigist state, helping the government to track and monitor citizens, and maintain a level of order and security. Like it or not, in dirigism, your life is the business of the state for the public interest.

To enhance the effectiveness of state control, another sphere of surveillance would be employed; the citizen, or brotherly watch. There is only so much that the state can do at once, and only so much that citizens can be caught doing. However, people talk and information travels, though usually within the circle of friends and family of an individual. For this, I turn to China, which has successfully implemented ways of getting information on people without having to employ a state actor to intervene. Enter their "social credit system". With this system, a Chinese citizen's personal information and internet activity is effectively compiled into a databank, and their activities used to set their social credit score, and rank their "trustworthiness". This collection of a person's travel, banking, and social activities can help the state build a profile of an individual, and with enough data, can help the state to predict that person's future behavior, allowing it to act before a person steps out of line.

Though this would just be the beginning of a proper method of controlling the behavior of the citizenry. This score would effect the ability of a citizen to travel, purchase goods, get a job, move into particular areas, and the like. This score would also effect and be effected by the scores of friends and family, helping to add pressure to the individual to conform to social norms and ensure they behave so as to effectively exist and partake in the society around them. With this score being known to all other individuals, it would add the layer of social alienation and ostracizing to that person, a far more powerful tool of control for the state, without making the state a direct participant in the event. This would force individual citizens to actively conform and seek to be "model citizens", so as not to harm the social standing of their friends and family, as well as not find themselves on the outskirts of a dirigist nation. This big brother system would encourage citizens to operate within the bounds set for them by the state, and lower potential criminal and antisocial behavior without to much intervention by the government authorities.

Chapter VIII: The Youth

We all know that the youth are the future of our civilization, and what they do as children and adolescents will influence what they do as adults. What influences they should be exposed too is the question I seek to answer. Currently, we in West live in a society that preaches a "hands-off" approach to parenting, with the common belief at corporal punishment is considered "child abuse", and teaching them religion is a form of "brainwashing". Ironically, this comes from a section of society, typically atheists, where children are few and far in between, and they typically react aggressively to certain parenting techniques primarily because those were the techniques they experienced as children themselves. Therefore, with their biased opinions placed to the side, how would dirigism effect and influence our youth? I believe that having a strong impact on the lives of children to bring them into dirigism willingly, will instill upon them the desire to be and remain good citizens as adults.

Effectively, what I'm saying is that children should be introduced to dirigism as early as possible, making it an important aspect of their childhoods, and making it a concept they learn, accept, and cherish well into adulthood. We all remember things that we loved as children, and we often have a special place for them in our hearts even as we enter our twilight years. The same should be true of dirigism. It would be up to the parents, teachers, and authorities to instill that desire to be a good dirigist into the youth of society, and to do so without force or fear. Throughout my life, I saw children and teens wasting their lives pursuing nonsensical goals and passions, or even worse, going to the streets to find a path for themselves they couldn't find in the world. Our youth need to shown a way of life that delivers, and that impresses upon them that following one's dreams is not always the best course of action. In many parts of the United States, it is common for rebelliousness to be accepted as the common behavior of children, and their actions typically go without punishment, especially in the inner-city communities of our largest cities.

All too often are the youth sold unrealistic ideas and concepts that as adults they never achieve, and these same youth ultimately become statistics; criminals or welfare recipients, because they pursued the wrong course of life and never fulfilled their true expectations and abilities. Dirigism does not sell dreams or fallacies. It sells hard facts and realities. Our youth are not stupid, and know when they are being lied too. However, it is hard for them to speak up on this knowledge when they are being lied too by those that they love. The best thing we can do is set an example for them early in life that they can respect and follow. Often we may need to lovingly push them in the right direction, and pushing them in the direction of a dirigist lifestyle can help them fulfill they ambitions, though often not the ones they believe they have. A lot of us wanted to be astronauts and doctors, though not all of us are cut out for those professions. Dirigism would do its part to keep out youth engaged and on the right path, while likewise keeping them off the streets and wasting their potential.

Youth movements are very useful in building up camaraderie within groups of children, as well as giving them a strong adult mentor they can respect and follow, who teaches them the proper way of life they should live both as a dirigist and a good citizen. Our youth today lack proper role models, instead putting more faith in rappers, athletes, and entertainers, than individuals who contribute to our society in a meaningful manner such as doctors, craftsmen, engineers, and scientists. These youth movements would also serve to help ease dirigist youth into the way of life of dirigists as a whole. Uniforms, ranks, a system of behavior, and ideological education would be apart of the youth movements promoted and maintained by the state. Training would very from caste to caste, though all would be responsible for impressing upon children a regime of physical, mental, and emotional training and fitness, as well as a respect for their elders and authority figures. Our kids lack these basic skills and regimes, and we seem to be losing them to forces that are corrupting them and creating a generation of spineless adults who need safe spaces and trigger warnings. A generation of dirigist youth would never become like our model "day-care" generation, coddled and protected from the realities of human existence.

The mentors of these children will be held responsible for the future success of their pupils, and it will fall upon them in the public world, and their parents in the private world, to ensure that the children of a dirigist society are model citizens as the mature. Say what you will about my stance on this issue about the future of our children, but the minds of children are extremely malleable, and we have no excuse to waste that potential to learn and to grow as individuals by "letting them find themselves" in the world. As their guardians, it is our job and our duty to ensure that the next generation is not only prepared to replace us, but to excel beyond us, and I believe that is only possible with dirigism as the guide. We should not be lying to our children telling them that they can be whatever they want to be, when in reality not every child will become an astronaut, a doctor, President of the United States, or savior of the universe. They require sensible guidance and logical parenting, and if the state must do that job for the parents, then so be it. Better to "indoctrinate" them for an orderly world than let them run free in a violent world. We only have one shot for every child under our care. We cannot afford to waste that shot on a dream.

Chapter IX: Women and the Family

I begin this chapter with a little info on myself. As a man who was raised in a family of ten women and two other men for most of his life, I can safely say I know what women think and feel when men aren't around to judge them. I know what their experiences were and the things they went through in their lives, and that gave me a good perspective on their reasoning. Therefore, I speak as someone having seen both sides of the story, allowing me to give a fair assessment on the topic of women, women's rights, feminism, and the concept of discrimination against women. While it is true that women are burdened with a heavy amount of suffering throughout the globe, it is equally true of men. Take warfare for example. While one might be keen to point out the instances of war rape, kidnapping, forced mutilation of captive women, and the enslavement of women for whatever the other side has planned for them, is it not true that men are forced to fight and die for a war they never wanted? To return home to see that their wife has been beaten, and carries a child in her arms that came about through a rape? To find several of his children missing because they were either taken for labor, to fight as soldiers, or sold by their captors? Does the man not suffer as well?

Whatever can be done to a woman can be done to a man as well. He is just as defenseless against the whims of those around him as his biological counterpart is as well. Unlike women however, men are expected to shoulder these weighty issues alone. If a man so much as dares to speak out against this, he is deemed weak, unmanly, impotent, or at worst, sexist. Women are not expected to die in battle, die providing food, shelter, and money for their families, to die simply because they are deemed "expendable". Women have it made, so much so that they aren't even expected to provide for themselves. Women are in short, adult children, and I say this with no intention of devaluing the work or worth of women. I say this only to state the fact that women are cared for in such a way men aren't. The law is on their side, the court of public opinion is on their side, men in general are even on their side. Women reap all the benefits men must work to earn, with none of the work added. People often state that single mothers have a lot of burdens to deal with, and they are correct. My own mother had to raise myself and my brother alone, but even she admits that it was a problem she got herself into. However, unlike most other single mothers, my mother worked hard to ensure, on her own dime, that we were taken care of, and that neither I nor my brother became statistics.

Now feminism. Let me just say that feminism is a cancer that needs to die immediately. The concept is first of all, unrealistic. As Aristotle stated himself: "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Men and women are not and will not be equals. Period. This isn't a misogynistic statement I'm making, but a clear statement of the facts as they exist. While both are quite capable of conducting themselves in an upstanding and independent manner, men are just better equipped for life in the real world. Women want everything a man has, but they don't want the responsibility. A father has to care for his children even if he isn't allowed to see them or even if they aren't his to begin with, but a mother will often have automatic rights to the children because the judges view her as a "vital part of their child's development". This flies in the face of reason and evidence, which shows that single mother's produce most of societies rejects, time and time again. And then the attacks on men by feminists over issues that simply do not exist, such as the gender pay gap and the ever dubious "rape culture", seem to never go away even as proof is presented to the world.

While the public in general paints fanciful pictures of women, such as Samus Aran from Metroid, Black Widow from the Avengers, or the trio of agents from Charlie's Angels, these concepts are just that. Concepts. Strong women exist, but not in the way the media portrays them as. For instance, how can Black Widow be a masterful fighter if every man she fights is totally incompetent? At least Samus fought enemies that were competent, but even then she had to fight them using an advanced piece of body armor that doesn't exist in real life. The Bible, a book I am quite fond of, depicts many strong female individuals. However, it depicts them in their rightful roles. Ruth was a wife who cared for her mother-in-law, Naomi, in a role most modern women would despise. She was a widow, but cared for herself as best she could with no desire of exploiting the men around her to get a leg up in society. Esther was a queen, but she did not marry for the power and wealth, but was picked by King Ahasuerus for her humility and respect for authority. Deborah was a prophetess of God, and went into battle with Israelite soldiers, but not because she had too. She did so to support Judge Baruk. When their opponent fled the scene, he was slain by a woman, but in his sleep. The woman didn't pull out a sword and duel him, it wouldn't have been possible.

The Bible paints a respectful but accurate picture of women, who God used to accomplish his will, but using the women in their proper roles. However, in modern society, people clamor to see "badass women" fighting men five times their size, and felling them with pointless acrobatics and protective plot armor. And in the event they are killed, it either happens off scene or the woman's death is as clean as possible. Men are killed in the most spectacular ways possible, while women are shielded from harm, even in the thick of battle. I for one believe that women have a place in society, one in subjection to men. While I do not believe in harming women, this is purely from a logical viewpoint. Women are weaker than men, and are therefore less of a threat than a man who is my size and carries the same or more muscle mass. While some women can defend themselves, most cannot, and therefore aren't worth the wasted energy in hitting them. However, I fully support hitting women who want to fight. We live in a free and equal society after all, and if they believe they can defend themselves, who am I to deny them their right to prove themselves correct?

This point aside, I bring it up for a reason. When women began to enter the workforce, nothing wrong with that, they began to leave traditional roles that indirectly led to the Sexual Revolution and Women's Liberation. While both movements had their up sides, they led to a host of problems that continue to effect modern society today. They destroyed the family unit, and effectively annihilated the most vital part of human society. Women were told that they didn't need a man in the household, and that they were entirely capable of running thing all by themselves. Now look at the modern day and what do we see? A broken society with loose morals and no sense of self-control. Single mothers produce the lion's share of the Western world's social degenerates, with more than 80% of all rapists coming from such households. Boys grow up to have no concept of fatherhood as it should be, willing to have kids freely and play no role in raising them. Girls grow up to see women throwing their bodies around, having kids with whomever they come across, and in turn, do the same themselves. The generation of today is completely debased, and women – mothers – are to blame.

By going back to how things were supposed to be, we could completely restore the balance the movements of the 1960s and 1970s destroyed. Do I believe that women shouldn't work or vote? No. Do I believe that they have a place in society in relation to men. Absolutely. It worked for thousands of years, and women today are more than happy to take a man's money to support themselves. Why not have them in a relationship and do something with themselves rather than hold down the next generation's leaders and scientists by producing a horde of social rejects? The family unit is key to the success of a society. A nation with a broken family is a nation with a broken people. A strong family nourishes a strong and successful generation of thinkers and pioneers. This has been proven time and time again. 93% of all high school dropouts in the United States come from single parent homes – single mother homes. People like to dispute this fact, but it remains a fact. When the father is in the home and in change of the family unit as he should be, you see success blossom. Take Asian households for example.

In Asian families, there is a clear hierarchy. The father makes the decisions, the mother supports him – right or wrong, but always keen to offer advice, and the children listen as they should. This is the not the exception. This is the rule and the norm. And guess what? Asians excel in every region they live in. In the United States, South Africa, and Brazil, East Asians are the top earners, the top achievers, and the top thinkers in their respective homelands. Why? A strong family unit with a father who guides and directs his family properly, a wife who shows him the proper respect and supports his decisions, and children who listen and obey as they understand their father's word is law. These families are successful because they operate as God intended them too. Even if you take God and religion as a whole out of the equation, the hard numbers and statistics prove this to be the case. Men and women have their place. When they stay in those places, the family and society as a whole prosper and reap the benefits of fine and upstanding citizens. It is truly a shame that this isn't the case in the Western world today.

If society as a whole were based upon the principles of the families hailing from East Asian cultures such as China, Japan, and Korea, then you would see a world that produced productive citizens rather than lazy and shiftless ones such as those sadly hailing from Black America. For this reason, I envision a strong but kindly father-like figure leading modern society, one whose word was unchallenged and obeyed by the masses for their own benefit. Dictatorships get things done because the leader gets his way. They fail because they often become drunk with power. Whether there could be a remedy to this problem, I'm not sure, but a fatherly leader would certainly help bring the world to a standard that is sorely lacking today. A society that patterned itself on the familial unit would certainly benefit from the effort put into such a system, as it would encourage others to understand one another as individuals within any family seek to understand the personalities within their houses. The beginning of peace and prosperity is understanding, and where better to get understanding than from your family? If society were like this, then I'm sure peace would follow in its wake.

Now, I hold what many might call an “antiquated” view of women. I believe there is a place for them in relationship to men. Personally, I like Ayn Rand’s view of women, that “the essence of femininity is hero worship – the desire to look up to man” and “an ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind.” Yes, it may be abhorrent to some, but God created men first, and then decided that it would be in man’s best interests to have a “helper”, so women were created as such. Rand also believed that a psychologically healthy woman wants to be sexually dominated by men, something that is proven true in the behavior of women, and the many silly actions they make in their pursuit of a man they deem “worthy” of “ruling” her, so to speak. Frankly, my personal views go further in a more…domineering sense. Polygamy – in specific polygyny – I feel is a nature and acceptable act with regards to marriage, and it has only been recently that most parts of human society have moved against the practice. When we break down the nature order of things so to speak, society crumbles. Some of the most successful cultures in human history were fiercely patriarchal, and the most impoverished oddly matriarchal. Methinks a pattern exists.

In Mongolia, it was noted by historians that wives were “docile, diligent, and lacked jealousy”, working to ensure the prosperity of their husband’s household rather than fight for his attention. Notably, it was only within the last two centuries in the West that harsh judgement of the practice of polygyny actually took place. As the whole world becomes westernized, we see Western values being forced upon other cultures, leading to the demonization of practices that were quite honestly effective and useful. Polygyny aside, when factoring in Western culture as a whole, the entire effect of society’s degeneration becomes manifest. The single mother epidemic, the opposition to polygamy, the disintegration of families and marriages, and the general disdain for authority – which directly undermines the authority of the father – can be traced to Western ideals and values. Once these are replaced, hopefully by dirigist values, then you will see happier women and stronger households spring up in their wake.

Chapter X: Sexuality

All right, the part that humans enjoy no matter how freaky things get. Disclaimer. I’m about to say a lot of things people will find offensive, disappointing, and even downright abhorrent. But whatever, it’s my book anyway. I’ll be covering everything from homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, rape, incest, and polygamy. If a society is to be crafted from the ground up with dirigism as its guide, then basic human functions such as sexuality, which plays a vital role in human culture and society, then dirigism must make its argument on what role sexuality plays within its tenants. And that I aim to do in this chapter.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room: homosexuality. I do not approve of it, and I do not care if people don’t like that fact. It is an anomalous part of human sexuality, and saying “well the animals do it too” isn’t a valid argument. By that same logic rape and murder would be “A” okay as well. From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality simply goes against the very grain of evolution’s core tenants; to ensure the survival of the species by adapting and expanding the gene pool of the species, so as to expand the population in an ever-changing environment. Homosexuality runs contrary to evolution’s goals as it takes genetic material that might have been useful for the species, and sealed it away as a gay man or woman would refuse to have sexual intercourse with of the opposite gender for little more than they were not attracted to them. This robs the species of valuable genetic information that could ensure the survival of the human race. Some may argue that a gay man could impregnate a female if need be, but honestly, how long do you think this would go on if you needed a “genetically superior” gay man producing the next generation of humans by having sex with a woman he wasn’t attracted too?

Even if sexual intercourse were put out of the picture, the entire concept would be regarded as repugnant to the majority of humanity, and would not last long. Homosexuality is wrong. There is no argument of that. Why do you have homosexuals fighting for a word – marriage – when in most countries, they had the same benefits with civil unions? Because the word itself made their actions seem less dishonorable and more “normal”. Why is the suicide rate in gay communities’ so high when they live so-called “tolerant” and “progressive” nations? Perhaps they know what they’re doing is wrong, and can no longer convince themselves of that fact. Look at transgender individuals. Many of them get the coveted sex change operation they long for, and the suicide rate skyrockets not long after the operation. Once again, this takes place not in “backwards” societies, but in the “open and inclusive” societies of the West. But no one wants to talk about this because it would mean having to assess and grade the beliefs they’ve held for long, and come to the conclusion that the “homophobes” they have demonized for decades, were right. Social justice groups and LGBT movements would have to change their behavior, and acknowledge the homosexuality and transgenderism are unnatural aspects of the human psyche.

Now, do I advocate for the persecution, or God forbid, murder of gays and lesbians? Absolutely not. There are some things that are deeply-entrenched in the mind as the Bible put it, and cannot be removed without serious effort. However, does that mean that I support the acceptance of such behavior in our society? Likewise no. Having a beloved child who is a kleptomaniac doesn’t mean that you are now required to accept that your child is a thief, and their behavior should be protected. Does it mean that you must hate your child? No. Only their action is of concern, not their person. Like any psychological malady, of which homosexuality is one, I believe in treating the problem. Epigenetics has been linked to homosexuality, a chemical imbalance that leads to such abhorrent sexual behavior, and with that information in mind, I believe that it can be cured as it were. Individuals will have their objections to this, but your feelings are secondary to basic morality. Homosexuality is a malady of the mind, and like anyone with such a disease, it must be cured for the health of the people.

So, with that in mind, let us address pedophilia. I’m not going to lie, it’ll be difficult trying to make a defense for something most of Western society hates without looking like a pedophile yourself. Know that I only speak from the stance of an impartial observer, neither for nor against the idea, and leaving it to the readers to come to their own conclusion on the topic. Well, the big bad of sexual behavior in human society…so we think. In many parts of the globe, pedophilia was rather acceptable, more so than even homosexuality. While people point to ancient Greece as an example, most of the boys were older than 12, therefore classing the men as hebephiliacs, those attracted to adolescent individuals. The abhorrence of pedophilia came with Western society yet again, with the ideals of those Western societies spreading with their colonial empires in the mid-18th century. Along with polygyny, pedophilia was pushed into the sphere of unacceptable sexual behavior as territories once open to these concepts were slowly westernized. The Etoro people of Papua New Guinea provide a good example of a society pedophilia exists and has not been vilified by the people. Boys from the age of 7 are required to ingest the semen of the village elders until the age of 17. The belief is that semen holds life, and that the aging of the elders is linked to their loss of semen, while the growth of the boys is likewise linked to the ingestion of semen. Regardless of the myths behind the tradition, the boys grow up to be well-rounded for their society, and strong families. None of the horrors that Westerners associate with pedophilia.

At one point in Manchu society, mothers would express their affection for their child by performing fellatio or cunnilingus on them. This was the case given that kissing – even between a mother and her son – was always deemed to be a sexual act. Fellatio was not. The practice was finally stopped when China westernized in the late-1800s, leading to the demise of the practice altogether. What should be noted is that here in the West, as late as the 1970s, pedophilia was more or less acceptable under the eyes of the law, and only recently criminalized directly. The stigma against pedophiles is such that people despise them even when they have done no wrong, with punishments far in excess of what some would consider fair. Notably, whenever you look at the study of pedophiles, we only hear of male pedophiles, very rarely if at all, female pedophiles, and the ones with the most access to children. As the saying goes, “where you have children, you will have pedophiles”. Society always seems to be preoccupied with dealing with the threat men pose to children, and never the one women pose to children. Honestly, there are just as many, if not more female pedophiles than male pedophiles. With all of this aside, one might ask why I defend, quite nervously, pedophilia, and denounce homosexuality. Simple. Most pedophiles are attracted to children of the opposite sex. Even in this “sickness”, they draw a line against homosexuality.

Now, let’s move on to something else less incendiary. I believe incest is a good subject. Incest is almost universally condemned in every major culture in the world. But why? Well that is rather simple. Most cultures understood the harm inbreeding could cause to their society and weaken or potential destroy a family unit with a new generation of infertile inbreeds. Genetic, however, has shown that inbreeding is actually safe so long as siblings and parents are avoided in terms of reproduction. This is the reason first cousin marriages are so prevalent throughout the non-Western world (yet again). However, the danger of inbreeding has everything to do with genetics and the flaws within human DNA. Basically, as far as it is known, there are dominant and recessive alleles, or A and a genes. Dominant alleles tend to be the healthy genes that are passed from parent to child, and determine their traits, while recessive alleles are often linked to unhealthy genes that lead to certain genetic diseases. If say, two parents, one with AA alleles and the other with Aa alleles have four children, the children would be born with the following: AAAaAa, and aa alleles. While the first child has two healthy alleles and therefore will not pass the unhealthy gene on, two carry an unhealthy allele that increases the chances of that gene appearing in their own children by 50%, and the final child has two unhealthy alleles and will pass the gene on unless they have a child with someone without the potential gene themselves.

Effectively, inbreeding as of now is a gamble with our genetics. The reason it is dangerous from a logical point of view is this. Say if the two children with the Aa alleles have a child together, given that they had a 50% increase in the risk of passing on the unhealthy a allele, that risk is increased exponentially with their new child. If their child does the same with another person with the same a allele risk, then the risk increases with each passing generation, until the risk is totally unavoidable. Inbreeding increases the risk of genetic diseases as it crosses genes with the similar traits, and therefore the chance of passing those unhealthy traits on to the new child. However, as scientific understanding of human genetics is expanded, and the ability to modify and outright fix genetic flaws comes closer, the day where inbreeding is no longer harmful to humanity draws near. Therefore, I find little issue with incest itself. People often say it is wrong simply because the person someone is interested in is their sibling annoys me. They are more welcoming to two unrelated individuals of the same sex being together than two related individuals of the opposite sex being together. That logic, or lack thereof, has always bothered me. Who knows, such incestuous behavior may bring the family closer together via the most intimate manner, and children may be more trusting of parents whom they know of in such a way. Only time will tell.

Chapter XI: Culture

Culture is one of the most important aspects of human society, as without a culture, you have nothing as a human being. It is fabric which outside of faith, family, and ideology, draws individuals together as a cohesive unit. A dirigist society will have a strong culture, as that is simply apart of human nature and something we should be proud of. However, what that culture promotes is what we should concern ourselves with. For instance, we subversive cultures which are self-destructive and contribute nothing to the advancement of society, and we have cultures which uphold the ideals of human self-improvement and refinement. I seek to promote the latter and remove the former. If dirigism is to sustain itself, it must have a deciding role in the advancement of human cultural norms. Concepts such as abortion, homosexuality, atheism, rebelliousness, sexual proclivity, and distrust for authority figures, have been promoted and sustained throughout the last two or three decades here in the West. While I believe that Western culture is superior in many respects to that of other societies, we cannot lie to ourselves and believe that none of these ideals of our culture have had a hand in the disintegration or social mores and taboos.

The art scene in much of the West has degraded to the level of scatology being upheld as the epitome of the human spirit and its ability to conceptualize new ideas, while abstract art which truly means nothing is equally respected by so-called "art critics". Throughout many nations, bland and ugly buildings replace what were once the premier symbols of Western architecture, and we are quickly seeing a loss of the skills which brought us the Statue of David, Michelangelo's fresco of the creation of Adam, and even the ability to build the structures like that in which it is located, the Sistine Chapel. Where music was once impactful and engaging, with the songs expressing the emotions of the singer and musician, we have now witnessed a decline in lyrics of songs, where a fourth-grader can remember entire albums word for word, and all someone has to do to become famous is repeat the same word three or four times. Human culture is dying out as it is being replaced with that which is cheap, easy, and not to heavy on the mind. We are losing what made us so intriguing as a species, and all because the next generation's standards have declined to the point of accepting absolute filth as "art".

I want to see a revival of the arts under a dirigist society, one where the standards of the art community is degraded so much. However, I also want it to promote ideals of that dirigist society, not unlike what is often done in communistic nations, where the arts are utilized masterfully to the ends of the state's will. No one can deny the abilities of Leonid Kharitonov, a masterful opera singer, or the thousands of other Soviet-era artists and musicians who operated within the bounds of their state's ideology, but without losing that touch that made them so memorable. That same touch I want for dirigism. Likewise, I wish to apply the same level of culture to architecture. I appreciate the architectural styles of cities such as Turin, Cuneo, Paris, Amsterdam, and Prague, but absolutely despise the grey and dreary cities of Tokyo, Berlin, and Frankfurt. We must bring the art of architecture back to society, and completely immerse ourselves and our civilization in what made cities like Paris and Saint Petersburg so famous. Personally, I would love to apply High Gothic architecture to modernist and minimalist settings, allowing for the touch of modernity to intermingle with the richness of our cultural past.

Moving on the subject social norms promoted by culture, I seek to address some issues with it. First of all is that involving sexuality in culture. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and pansexuality, are all promoted extensively in the West. In fact, it has gotten to the point where major media sites have complained about the "over-abundance" of gay characters in the media, with one individual asking that Hollywood "stop gaying all the things". I have no problem with that request. We know gay people exist, but to demand that the rest of society accept what is effectively a hormonal imbalance in some, and a mental illness in others, is aggravating. Such behavior would not be tolerated in dirigist society, for any group of people. Next is that of promiscuity. Now, being a man, I have no problem with a woman "down-dressing" in public, and actually welcome it as a future trend. Often times, less is more. However, to promote the idea that cheating on one's spouse (or spouses) is perfectly normal, will never be apart of dirigist society, and what's more, should never be accepted in any society. Our culture attacks marriage, and wants to break it down, not because it is a handicap, but because there are those who wish to see themselves "freed" of any responsibility at all, or worse, see divorce as a quick way to a paycheck.

Next on the agenda is drug use. Drug use is something I wholeheartedly disagree with, and view as abnormal. I have never used drugs myself, and I grew up watching the devastating effects it had on those who did. To cloud the mind, destroy the body, and corrupt the individual, such substances are truly horrific in my book. While there will be those who advocate for its use as a choice one should make for themselves, I want to ensure that no one ever uses that garbage at all. However, as we have seen throughout history, a war on drugs is not particularly effective, especially when waged by the government. My solution to this issue is twofold. While I disagree with the method, legalizing drugs would make criminal enterprise in this sector unprofitable, and give the government the powers the regulate the trade of the goods. Second, using peer pressure to force individuals away from drug use would help to stop this destructive behavior. Friends and family hold a level of influence over an individual the state never will. By having indoctrinated individuals in dirigist thought, they will have been shown the stance dirigism takes on the subject of self-destructive drug use, which will serve to bring citizens back into the fold of society.

As a whole, I want to rebuild the culture that we have been losing, and add to it, and present it as the best that humans have and improve upon. By lowering our standards, and accepting anything that we are given, we fall victim to the "bigotry of low expectations". When we say we'll except everything, we hold ourselves hostage to lower standards, and expect nothing more from ourselves as a group, damning us to a cycle of mediocrity. It is our duty to pass onto our offspring a culture they can be proud of, and want to pass on to their own offspring. We shouldn't be giving the museums filled with boulders, simply because we believe they "represent the oppressive nature of the human spirit", or three blank canvas that tour the world as the best a "professional artist" has to offer. It is a disgrace, and we have no excuse not to do better. If we don't not, then we are erasing what makes us as a people unique. Dirigism will not allow that to happen so long as it exists as the dominate ideology of the people and of the state.

Chapter XII: Education

Education is one of the greatest deciding factors in the shaping on an individual's life. It is of paramount importance to any civilized society, and a breeding ground for all sorts of ideas both good and bad. As I discussed in Chapter VIII, the youth of society are blank slates which can be guided into particular fields if they are raised properly. Likewise, while youth movements are an excellent method of bringing children into dirigism in extracurricular activities, the schools are where formal indoctrination into dirigist thought will and should take place. As it stands right now, in most nations, the educational systems are complete garbage, training our kids to be nothing more than factory workers without any potential for growth into other fields their nation could exploit. This is the next generation of human beings we are dealing with, and we need an educational system that fulfills that role sufficiently. Thus, while we have a "captive audience" as it were, we should not waste time with the children, whose minds are fresh and ready to be molded for the needs of their dirigist society.

Within the schools, we must teach our kids the most important subjects for human growth; the sciences, mathematics, and spirituality. Arts and literature, while important, do not help children excel, as it teaches them to think as the previous generation thought. How can we produce new Mark Twains, Charles Dickens, Jane Austins, or Edgar Allen Poes, if we constantly have them reread the work of those authors rather than developing their own thoughts and fantasies? While dirigism teaches conformity, certain aspects of humanity such as the desire to fantasize would never be constrained. That is important for the growth of the future generation. What the children fantasize about, however, can be guided by the education they are given, allowing them to dream but to dream in a dirigist reality. By controlling the educational materials students read and absorb, we can control what the future will be. And though it may sound unappealing to do this, remember, we do this already. We control what they read, and we begin from the birth of a child, to decide what they will be, what college they will attend, what job they should have, and what spouse they should marry. Education is but one of the many facets of that control.

However, we must also guide who teaches our pupils, as they serve as the mentors of our youth in the classroom. These would be qualified individuals, not like our under-trained, underpaid, and under-appreciated teachers of today. All teachers would be a member of the Intelligentsia caste of dirigism, and would represent a highly respected tier within that caste, as they are given the responsibility of bringing up the next generation of loyal dirigists. All teachers would have also been loyal dirigists themselves, devoted to the cause of the ideology and the principles it stood for. And conflicting thoughts expressed by the teachers would be reported by the students and other teachers, the former trained to do so by their youth group leaders, and the latter for the satisfaction of knowing they are preventing the destructive ideologies of the past from creeping back into the minds of the students under their care and guidance. I want teachers to feel that they are an important player in society, as today they are often regarded with little respect and dignity, and often, they must fight to be treated as equals in a generation they helped to create.

Study groups would be a vital part of the educational process, as it help students to share information others may not have known, as well as teach them early on to work, think, and act as a group, vital to the core principles of conformity within dirigism. From the time they enter into school during their formative preschool years, to their time in secondary school, these learning groups would be paramount to their education. These learning groups would be formed into classes of about 20 or thirty students with a single instructor, allowing the teacher to assist each student individually, as well as help students build relationships with one another without being drowned out by a horde of faceless strangers they rarely if ever interact with. While students and their parents are responsible for the academic performance of the student, teachers are held chiefly responsible for the success and failure of their classes, as they are the first party the students interact with and answer too. The state's educational organs will investigate each class at the end of each year, to measure the progress they've made. Teachers would be disciplined or rewarded for their actions, as they hold the future of our society in their hands during the formative years of our youth.

Now, while the fundamentals of education are important to the needs of a student, they must also be taught to be healthy so as to contribute to society when they enter the workforce. Within dirigist society, all citizens will belong to a caste, and naturally, they will all have their own requirements for certain education and the like. Parents can decide which caste they want their children to be trained for, though as a child progresses through their education, their school will be collecting information on their growth and handicaps, and if deemed necessary, can and will move them to another caste preparation class. Likewise, the state can determine its projected workforce needs, and shift students around as needed to make up for the vacancies they need to fill. As merit is the deciding factor for a student's future life course, those who excel in certain fields will be given the chance to pursue the role they are shown to best fit in, helping them to see that their dreams may not lay in course they or their parents plotted for them.

All education would be paid for by the state, as it is the state acting on behalf of society as a whole, which has a keen interest in the success of the student. It is a necessary investment in the future of the state's wards itself. Naturally, this would that educational standards and curriculum will be uniform throughout all schools maintained by the state. All children would have the same opportunity as their peers in other areas of the nation. Political education would be vital to the sustenance of the state, as each child is a blank slate the state must impress itself upon. If dirigism as an ideology is to survive, it must have a say in the upbringing of children, and that must be accomplished primarily through the educational system. Students would be quizzed on their understanding of dirigist principles, and encouraged to learn more about dirigism, and seek to maintain and abide by its principles. The last thing we need is for that ideology that desires them to excel as individuals, to collapse because they were not taught to appreciate that fact.

Chapter XIII: Science and Technology

Science and technology are the future of humanity, with the understanding of life and the universe around it having a fundamentally paramount role in the culture and society of the human species. Throughout our history as a people, science has been poorly understood by the masses, the leadership, and even scientists themselves. It has been because of this that governments have resisted advancements in certain areas of science and technology such as genetics, while fear-mongering by certain corners of society have pushed to block out access to certain technologies. Sadly, there have been times when all three groups have fought against certain aspects of scientific progress out of fear of the unknown. Such behavior has long stunted the growth of the human race simply because of the inconvenient truths unraveled by humanity's best and brightest. However, governments and powerful religious bodies have long fought to prevent uncomfortable discoveries from shaking the status quo of their times.

In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and though he erroneously substituted it with the sun, he was wise not to directly challenge the retrograde ideology of the Catholic Church of his time. Rather, it was Galileo who would take on and suffer in this fight. He was long censored by the Catholic Church because of his revolutionary discoveries, proving Earth was not the center of the universe, shaking the very foundations of the Church's teachings. Both men were devout Catholics, and believed that science should trump faith and politics when empirical facts came to be known. In the more recent past, science has been used as a tool for political gain, with scientists of the 10th and mid-20th centuries, publishing scientific papers that promoted racist beliefs such as the concept of sub-Saharan Africans being intellectually stunted because of the dimensions of their heads, while others elevated Caucasians to a status of racial superiority such as during the times of Nazi Germany.

Now, what is the point I'm so laboriously moving toward, and what does it have to do with dirigism? That much is very simple. Dirigism does not promote the use of science as a source of political gain, nor does it promote the suppression of certain elements of scientific progress that some would find unsavory. Any developments that would bring direct benefit to the human race would be welcomed by any dirigist government. The harnessing of the power of stem cells and gene sequencing in humans would be held as important fields of scientific research that ought to be given more resources, and the very real and very dangerous role of global warming and humanity's part in it, would receive the attention it needs from dirigists, given the threat it poses to the survival of humanity. As humans with boundless intellectual potential, it is paramount that we confront the scientific method for what it is rather than what we want it to be; a set of universal principals that help us to understand the very clockwork mechanisms that make our lives and nature what they are, and the very existence of the universe possible.

Because of my religious beliefs, some would assume that I would be "anti-science". This I disagree with. Rather, I believe that humans have innate god-given potential for understanding and unraveling the secrets of the universe. Thus, I reiterate Genesis 11:6, where God himself stated: "'Look! They are one people with one language, and this is what they have started to do. Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them.'" So great is our capacity for learning and adapting to our environment, that God himself stated that there was nothing humans could not do if we set our minds too it. To suppress this inborn desire to learn and to grow as a people, for nothing more than the fact that science scares you, is the most foolish decision one could make aside from denying the existence of an intelligent creator in my opinion. Why should we insist that certain aspects of nature such as human biology ought to be considered "sacred" or "off-limits", simply because it reminds of us of uncomfortable truths such as our mortality? Dirigism would promote science and technological innovations as an important part of the human race's progression as a species.

Technology is another area which I believe ought to be left to itself. While I certainly understand the repercussions of unbound technological innovation, and the harm it could cause to people if left unchecked, I also believe that we cannot remain stagnant forever, unless that is the clear will of the people as a whole. While I have pushed for the fatherly "nanny state" thus far, I believe that science and technology are one area that people should have some freedoms in pursuing. Cybernetics will revolutionize the way in which humans operate, as well as genetic manipulation. I am a longtime fan of both robotics and biology, and believe if the aura of fear around both would dropped or the fears themselves addressed in a meaningful way, that we could harness the power of both. Now some might fear a future of "killer robots", but I must say right now that I'd rather have robots killing each other rather humans killing one another. Dirigism must be friendly to scientific progress and the technological innovation that comes with it. This is of paramount importance to the human race as a whole.


Now as I wrap up my thoughts, allow me to leave a disclaimer. Do not take my words as the absolute end all to the problems that we face as a society. These are simply my thoughts on the matter as I see them. For years I sat back and watched humanity tear itself apart, and I finally grew tired of watching and waiting, when I could simply put forth my own ideas. This is a relatively short thesis as far as dissertations go, but it is sufficient for the time being until I decide whether or not to expand upon my thoughts. As you can tell, I provide no sources for any of my claims, mostly due to the fact that I don't feel like getting the information and presenting it. Consider this more of a rant than anything else. I just want people to know that not all ideas and concepts are bad, and not all highly esteemed ways of life are good. Sometimes what we deem to be broken may actually be the way it was suppose to work, and we just haven't gotten past the point of looking beyond ourselves and accepting the truth as the it is. Ancient China managed to do just fine with its totalitarian government, as it held the nation together for nearly five thousand years, and produced much of the of culture prized throughout China that we marvel at. Draw your own conclusions, say what you must, and do what you will. Just know that I what I wrote is how I feel and nothing more.