What's your political platform?

Suppose someone handed you five years of total control to do whatever you wanted.

What would your political platform actually look like?

Lisa Patel4 said:Suppose someone handed you five years of total control to do whatever you wanted.

What would your political platform actually look like?

-Total purge (political, economic, and mental)
-Prosecute every single crime committed by totalitarian regimes
-Ban all totalitarian parties and their symbols
-Ban former leaders from holding any positions in what they call "representative bodies"
-Aggressive political action to protect Americans living abroad, especially in Canada (whether through creating a third entity or restructuring how things work now)
-Overhaul the voting system (6 districts with 25 reps each + minorities and the diaspora, with a 3% threshold)
-Fix the judiciary, empower judges in civil and commercial disputes, scrap immunity for all officials, promote tax compliance, and punish anyone dodging their taxes
-Reorganize the government, kill off useless agencies and directorates, train public servants better, and cut through the red tape
-Push hard for STEM excellence and technical skills
-Slash all taxes (once the macroeconomy stabilizes and the national debt hits reasonable levels)
-Get the government out of the economy and let the private sector run wild
-Boost high-value industries
-Adopt the Euro (once we meet the requirements)
-Tighten ties with NATO and the Baltic states—basically, ditch this region entirely
-Crack down on how state subsidies are used (I'd rather scrap them altogether, but the European Union won't allow it)

That's it for now. There's way more where that came from.

Lisa Patel4 said:Suppose someone handed you five years of total control to do whatever you wanted.

What would your political platform actually look like?

Supply-side economics, obviously.
Massive deregulation—paired with a much stronger judicial system—and stripping the government down to the absolute bare essentials.

This is such a fascinating topic, and honestly—even for someone like me who’s just a political amateur—it’s pretty tough to know where to even start. You look at Plato, right? In his book "The Republic," he basically argued that a truly great state is one where everyone finds their niche—like, a shoemaker who is actually happy being a shoemaker. It’s all about that specialized harmony...

Now, that sounds lovely on paper, but let’s be real—I don't know how deep of a hole our own country has actually fallen into. But, here’s my take:

In my book, we need to make sure society always has access to fundamental knowledge across the board. Whether you're part of the ruling elite or running one of those massive corporations of national importance, I’d insist on everyone having a perfect grasp of at least one foreign language—though, obviously, the more the merrier! English is a given, but maybe German, French, or Russian too. And hey, why not Mandarin Chinese!

We should probably consider leaving the European Union if it stays stuck in its current ways. I actually find myself leaning toward Marine Le Pen's vision of a "European people"—where every nation maintains absolute sovereignty over its military, borders, and economy, while perhaps keeping the Euro as a secondary currency alongside our own national one. We need to trigger a depreciation of the dollar and kick out those predatory foreign banks that are bleeding us dry.

We also need to offer killer scholarships to talented young people in EVERY discipline, paired with a guarantee from the State that they'll have the best possible working conditions and job opportunities once they graduate...

Then there’s the big one: reindustrializing the country and getting the elite to actually step up and save our dying industries. It is genuinely painful—like, personally gut-wrenching—to watch a collapsed giant like U.S. Steel or other former industrial titans just wither away.

We have to INSIST on high levels of self-sufficiency—everything from agriculture to manufacturing to energy. We should be subsidizing our domestic farmers and giving them preferential status over foreign competitors when it comes to buying and selling within our own markets. The same goes for our most vital cultural institutions, like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

And we absolutely need to RECLAIM the natural resources of the USA that were snatched away through those terrible, lopsided contracts.

Finally, we need to implement strong pro-family policies and give real privileges to large families.

...I'm sure I've missed a hundred other things, but that's my two cents for now!

Justice

🙂

My platform:

- Abolish the parliamentary republic. We need to scrap this current US Congress where about 70% of members don't even show up for debates. It’s just inefficient, weighed down by lobbyists, and filled with incompetent politicians. There are way too many useless parties just draining taxpayer money without providing any value.
- Instead, let's build a meritocratic republic led by a supreme council. The country would be run by the smartest, most capable people, overseen by a supervisory board. That board could fire anyone if they fail at their job or prove incompetent. They’d be chosen through general elections, nominated by councils and a popular council representing the people. Terms would be 6 years. This council would consist of 14-20 leaders. Requirements for entry would be crystal clear: high expertise, proven ability, and deep patriotism. Maybe then we wouldn't see constant friction between the President and Prime Ministers who barely finished high school.
- Every single change to the law should be decided via referendum.
- The introduction of compulsory voting in elections and referendums.
- A complete overhaul of the school system. High school should be mandatory, we need fewer general liberal arts schools, and more vocational high schools.
- Higher education reform. Anyone with a degree from a state university should be legally required to work in the US for five years.
- A GMO ban.
- Adopting a Swiss-style model for mandatory military service.
- Merging the Constitutional and Supreme Courts into one single judicial body.
- The introduction of a national natalist fund along with strict maternity leave laws.
- Building up tech hubs.
- Privatizing everything except strategically vital state companies—like energy and natural resources—which would be protected by a constitutional ban on privatization.
- Abortion law. For a woman seeking an abortion, the state would offer financial compensation to choose birth instead. Those children would be raised by the state and eventually serve the country, maybe in the military or diplomacy.
- A tax on junk products.
- Strong cultural and educational policies.
- Legalizing prostitution.
- Scraping the "autonomy" of counties where local sheriffs waste millions on nonsense. All county projects would need approval from the supreme council.
- A total ban on any regionalization of the US.
- Heavy subsidies for agriculture and for pushing new technologies.
...
I probably have another million economic reforms I'd implement.

Anthony Cooper2 said:This is such a fascinating topic, and honestly—even for someone like me who’s just a political amateur—it’s pretty tough to know where to even start. You look at Plato, right? In his book "The Republic," he basically argued that a truly great state is one where everyone finds their niche—like, a shoemaker who is actually happy being a shoemaker. It’s all about that specialized harmony...

Now, that sounds lovely on paper, but let’s be real—I don't know how deep of a hole our own country has actually fallen into. But, here’s my take:

In my book, we need to make sure society always has access to fundamental knowledge across the board. Whether you're part of the ruling elite or running one of those massive corporations of national importance, I’d insist on everyone having a perfect grasp of at least one foreign language—though, obviously, the more the merrier! English is a given, but maybe German, French, or Russian too. And hey, why not Mandarin Chinese!

We should probably consider leaving the European Union if it stays stuck in its current ways. I actually find myself leaning toward Marine Le Pen's vision of a "European people"—where every nation maintains absolute sovereignty over its military, borders, and economy, while perhaps keeping the Euro as a secondary currency alongside our own national one. We need to trigger a depreciation of the dollar and kick out those predatory foreign banks that are bleeding us dry.

We also need to offer killer scholarships to talented young people in EVERY discipline, paired with a guarantee from the State that they'll have the best possible working conditions and job opportunities once they graduate...

Then there’s the big one: reindustrializing the country and getting the elite to actually step up and save our dying industries. It is genuinely painful—like, personally gut-wrenching—to watch a collapsed giant like U.S. Steel or other former industrial titans just wither away.

We have to INSIST on high levels of self-sufficiency—everything from agriculture to manufacturing to energy. We should be subsidizing our domestic farmers and giving them preferential status over foreign competitors when it comes to buying and selling within our own markets. The same goes for our most vital cultural institutions, like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

And we absolutely need to RECLAIM the natural resources of the USA that were snatched away through those terrible, lopsided contracts.

Finally, we need to implement strong pro-family policies and give real privileges to large families.

...I'm sure I've missed a hundred other things, but that's my two cents for now!

I'm also a supporter of a Europe of nations, without the EU Commission and its kind of parasites.
A country should generally organize itself in whatever way suits it best.

Economically, I favor entrepreneurial capitalism, just not this wild neoliberalism. Socialism is a system that practically creates a society of slaves to the State and its policies. An economy can't function without a government, but you really need to minimize the State's role in economic matters.

I only consider an ethnically homogeneous national state to be long-term stable and sustainable in practice.

Government policy should focus on national security, justice, education, healthcare, and cultural policy.

Though, I suppose there's only one truth in practice. Pure economic liberalism doesn't exist; it isn't even possible. Every state uses some kind of Keynesian model.

Industry? Yes, but only what you can actually maintain. Producing things just for the sake of production turned out to be a disaster under socialism.

Again, I think the USA urgently needs to fix its over-reliance on tourism.

Lisa Patel4 said:My platform:

- Abolish the parliamentary republic. We need to scrap this current US Congress where about 70% of members don't even show up for debates. It’s just inefficient, weighed down by lobbyists, and filled with incompetent politicians. There are way too many useless parties just draining taxpayer money without providing any value.
- Instead, let's build a meritocratic republic led by a supreme council. The country would be run by the smartest, most capable people, overseen by a supervisory board. That board could fire anyone if they fail at their job or prove incompetent. They’d be chosen through general elections, nominated by councils and a popular council representing the people. Terms would be 6 years. This council would consist of 14-20 leaders. Requirements for entry would be crystal clear: high expertise, proven ability, and deep patriotism. Maybe then we wouldn't see constant friction between the President and Prime Ministers who barely finished high school.
- Every single change to the law should be decided via referendum.
- The introduction of compulsory voting in elections and referendums.
- A complete overhaul of the school system. High school should be mandatory, we need fewer general liberal arts schools, and more vocational high schools.
- Higher education reform. Anyone with a degree from a state university should be legally required to work in the US for five years.
- A GMO ban.
- Adopting a Swiss-style model for mandatory military service.
- Merging the Constitutional and Supreme Courts into one single judicial body.
- The introduction of a national natalist fund along with strict maternity leave laws.
- Building up tech hubs.
- Privatizing everything except strategically vital state companies—like energy and natural resources—which would be protected by a constitutional ban on privatization.
- Abortion law. For a woman seeking an abortion, the state would offer financial compensation to choose birth instead. Those children would be raised by the state and eventually serve the country, maybe in the military or diplomacy.
- A tax on junk products.
- Strong cultural and educational policies.
- Legalizing prostitution.
- Scraping the "autonomy" of counties where local sheriffs waste millions on nonsense. All county projects would need approval from the supreme council.
- A total ban on any regionalization of the US.
- Heavy subsidies for agriculture and for pushing new technologies.
...
I probably have another million economic reforms I'd implement.

I’ll just weigh in here—and honestly, I suspect the entire legal community would push back on this idea.
The Constitutional Court isn't technically part of the judicial branch (though how you define "the courts" doesn't really matter)... having some kind of oversight body above the legislature, judiciary, and executive is a good thing—most European nations have something similar in place.
Protecting the Constitution and our fundamental rights should be the job of a specific, dedicated body... personally, I don't see the need for a merger. Their roles just don't overlap...

Paul Thomas46 said:I’ll just weigh in here—and honestly, I suspect the entire legal community would push back on this idea.
The Constitutional Court isn't technically part of the judicial branch (though how you define "the courts" doesn't really matter)... having some kind of oversight body above the legislature, judiciary, and executive is a good thing—most European nations have something similar in place.
Protecting the Constitution and our fundamental rights should be the job of a specific, dedicated body... personally, I don't see the need for a merger. Their roles just don't overlap...

Do you honestly think it's normal for one court to overturn almost every decision made by another?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that functions as its constitutional court?

Lisa Patel4 said:Do you honestly think it's normal for one court to overturn almost every decision made by another?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that functions as its constitutional court?

It's not really like that. At the end of the day, someone's gotta make sure everything actually follows the Constitution and stays legal.
Who else is the Supreme Court gonna turn to when they run into a law they think is unconstitutional?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that acts as its constitutional court too?

They probably just have separate departments there.

Absolute sovereignty, period.

Screw the foreign bankers! Or, if you want to put it the American way: let’s get our dollars back into American pockets. We need to call out those traitors who sold off our banks and basically shackled the US economy to the whims of the global elite. They should be prosecuted and punished properly for high treason.

Look, sovereignty is just a hollow word if we don't have control over our own damn treasury. It's all bullshit without a sovereign cash flow.

We should ban foreign investment in places where we've been blessed with natural resources. Honestly, we don't need those "God-given" foreign investments in tourism or whatever—those massive international hotel chains are basically just stealing our market share from us.

Then, we really need to push some pro-natalist policies. Forget all those quotas and trendy projects about getting more women into politics or business... let's actually implement a program for mothers and provide free childcare instead. That's what matters.

Without doing the stuff above, everything else is just pure demagoguery.

Forgot the most important part, though... it’s just God sitting above the new order in Congress.

Basically, we need to tell those big-shot capital cities like Brussels to screw off. We shouldn't have people in black suits who've never even laid eyes on a ballot box deciding the fate of the USA!

Casey Ramos31 said:It's not really like that. At the end of the day, someone's gotta make sure everything actually follows the Constitution and stays legal.
Who else is the Supreme Court gonna turn to when they run into a law they think is unconstitutional?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that acts as its constitutional court too?

They probably just have separate departments there.

Why couldn't the Supreme Court just interpret the Constitution themselves?

It feels like a total joke when two different courts interpret the exact same law differently.

That's just my suggestion. I guess maybe combining them isn't the move.

Lisa Patel4 said:My platform:

- Abolish the parliamentary republic. We need to scrap this current US Congress where about 70% of members don't even show up for debates. It’s just inefficient, weighed down by lobbyists, and filled with incompetent politicians. There are way too many useless parties just draining taxpayer money without providing any value.
- Instead, let's build a meritocratic republic led by a supreme council. The country would be run by the smartest, most capable people, overseen by a supervisory board. That board could fire anyone if they fail at their job or prove incompetent. They’d be chosen through general elections, nominated by councils and a popular council representing the people. Terms would be 6 years. This council would consist of 14-20 leaders. Requirements for entry would be crystal clear: high expertise, proven ability, and deep patriotism. Maybe then we wouldn't see constant friction between the President and Prime Ministers who barely finished high school.
- Every single change to the law should be decided via referendum.
- The introduction of compulsory voting in elections and referendums.
- A complete overhaul of the school system. High school should be mandatory, we need fewer general liberal arts schools, and more vocational high schools.
- Higher education reform. Anyone with a degree from a state university should be legally required to work in the US for five years.
- A GMO ban.
- Adopting a Swiss-style model for mandatory military service.
- Merging the Constitutional and Supreme Courts into one single judicial body.
- The introduction of a national natalist fund along with strict maternity leave laws.
- Building up tech hubs.
- Privatizing everything except strategically vital state companies—like energy and natural resources—which would be protected by a constitutional ban on privatization.
- Abortion law. For a woman seeking an abortion, the state would offer financial compensation to choose birth instead. Those children would be raised by the state and eventually serve the country, maybe in the military or diplomacy.
- A tax on junk products.
- Strong cultural and educational policies.
- Legalizing prostitution.
- Scraping the "autonomy" of counties where local sheriffs waste millions on nonsense. All county projects would need approval from the supreme council.
- A total ban on any regionalization of the US.
- Heavy subsidies for agriculture and for pushing new technologies.
...
I probably have another million economic reforms I'd implement.

Meritocracy, wow, that term sure sounds fancy in this day and age, doesn't it? It’s something Michel Onfray—that famous French philosopher who the mainstream media loves to tear apart lately because he dared to say he "supports any common-sense idea, even if it comes from the National Rally"—talks about. He also mentioned how, as the child of a Norman peasant, he was able to achieve his current status and intellect thanks to the old Republic and its education system. He expressed real concern about the absolute disaster of our modern schooling, where access to knowledge—though even that "knowledge" is questionable given how heavily it's ideologically biased—is mostly reserved for the wealthy elite. It used to be possible for everyone, including him, a kid from a poor farming family. So, this idea of a meritocratic republic with the power structure you're describing seems super interesting to me. Does a system like that actually exist in the world, or maybe even in history? Do you honestly think a setup like this would take root here? I'm asking seriously. I mean, no matter how efficient or tempting foreign systems might look—people always point to and romanticize those Protestant Scandinavian models—we really have to consider what works best for US culture, because we aren't Swedes, we aren't Americans, and we aren't the British.

I am totally on board with the whole pro-natalist policy vibe and the debate over the abortion law. 👍 Taxing the sun or whatever—honestly, everything you mentioned is a solid 5/5 in my book. Quick question though—how do you think our policies are actually landing on the global stage?

Lisa Patel4 said:Do you honestly think it's normal for one court to overturn almost every decision made by another?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that functions as its constitutional court?

The Supreme Court isn't really a "court" in the traditional judicial sense...
And yes, it’s perfectly normal—given how many massive hurdles we face when actually enforcing laws (and the Constitution). What is truly abnormal is seeing bodies whose decisions are repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court continue their unconstitutional practices anyway. In fact, they even push forward after ECHR rulings—that is what’s genuinely wrong...

Common law systems differ quite a bit from ours, including how the courts are structured. When discussing these issues, one shouldn't be comparing us to the USA—unless we're talking about the UK, I suppose...

Lisa Patel4 said:Why couldn't the Supreme Court just interpret the Constitution themselves?

It feels like a total joke when two different courts interpret the exact same law differently.

That's just my suggestion. I guess maybe combining them isn't the move.

Theoretically, they could if there was a specific department within the Supreme Court dedicated solely to constitutionality and legality.
But we aren't even talking about interpretation here—it's about assessment. Every body that applies a law interprets it while they're at it.

@mistygull16: Short and sweet! 👍

I’d also love to dive into the cultural side of things for a second—personally, I think it's absolutely vital for the government to step up and back our major cultural institutions, you know? We're talking about the big-deal stuff like museums, national theaters, or even major publishing houses. Honestly, it breaks my heart a little when I see places like small towns in the Midwest or rural parts of Texas—where you can barely find a single decent little bookstore, but man, there's a damn betting parlor or a liquor store on every single corner. It’s just... yikes!! Also, looking at the bigger picture globally, we really need to push American literature harder. We should be translating our classics—think guys like Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—into every major language out there. They need to be accessible to everyone, everywhere. Now, I get it—on paper, that doesn't look like a massive money-maker, and honestly, it probably isn't, but in my book, it's absolutely essential.

Anthony Cooper2 said:Meritocracy, wow, that term sure sounds fancy in this day and age, doesn't it? It’s something Michel Onfray—that famous French philosopher who the mainstream media loves to tear apart lately because he dared to say he "supports any common-sense idea, even if it comes from the National Rally"—talks about. He also mentioned how, as the child of a Norman peasant, he was able to achieve his current status and intellect thanks to the old Republic and its education system. He expressed real concern about the absolute disaster of our modern schooling, where access to knowledge—though even that "knowledge" is questionable given how heavily it's ideologically biased—is mostly reserved for the wealthy elite. It used to be possible for everyone, including him, a kid from a poor farming family. So, this idea of a meritocratic republic with the power structure you're describing seems super interesting to me. Does a system like that actually exist in the world, or maybe even in history? Do you honestly think a setup like this would take root here? I'm asking seriously. I mean, no matter how efficient or tempting foreign systems might look—people always point to and romanticize those Protestant Scandinavian models—we really have to consider what works best for US culture, because we aren't Swedes, we aren't Americans, and we aren't the British.

I am totally on board with the whole pro-natalist policy vibe and the debate over the abortion law. 👍 Taxing the sun or whatever—honestly, everything you mentioned is a solid 5/5 in my book. Quick question though—how do you think our policies are actually landing on the global stage?

Thanks.

In practice, I guess meritocracy has never actually existed as an official form of government. Ancient China had a meritocratic bureaucracy, which is probably why they managed to survive as a nation for 5,000 years. Maybe.

The Ottoman Empire utilized a meritocratic nobility system. Since there was no hereditary aristocracy, anyone could rise to become a Vizier or a Beg. I guess that’s why the empire was such a highly organized state during its peak.

If I recall correctly, I think there might be something about that in Singapore's laws.

Would this actually take root? No. It wouldn't happen in today’s Western societies, and it couldn't. In America, you have a majority of the electorate that is essentially dependent on political parties—whether it's for their jobs or just the hope that it might lead to one. I don't really blame people much for being in a situation like that, I guess.

Maybe this kind of setup would actually work in some collectivist Asian societies. I guess China used to run a system pretty similar to this, where you just have one single party rotating through power.
I guess you could say neoliberalism and corporatism are basically just Darwinian systems. It’s pretty simple: either you're the best, or you get crushed.

Look, history shows us that monarchies had their perks back in the day, I guess. But like any system, they eventually became hostages to a bunch of idiots in the nobility who got so drunk on their own power that they just started doing whatever they wanted.

Absolute monarchy was overthrown, obviously. Then came enlightened absolutism, which I guess produced some pretty solid results at first. But eventually, that system just became a hostage to its own structure.

And here we are, living in a Republic. A Republic that seems to serve various special interest lobbies while constantly sidelining the actual interests of the nation, I guess.

When it comes to Protestantism, I guess it only really works in societies built on heavy individual responsibility. Those cultures have moved past that collectivist mindset. That’s probably why it just won't stick in American culture.

When it comes to meritocracy, I honestly don't see a better way to run things. It’s basically putting the smartest, most capable, and wisest people in charge. No one knows everything, obviously, but if you had a council of 20 experts—people everyone actually agrees are highly skilled and qualified to lead the country—I’d trust them to run the nation in a heartbeat. I’d take that over the same tired faces from the Democratic or Republican establishment who have been cycling through Washington for twenty years and can barely string a coherent sentence together.

We have a Congress where most people don't even show up. There are over 100 parties involved. 🙂

Foreign policy.

Mandatory entry into the V4, aligning more closely with Poland since their influence is growing and they share a lot of our cultural DNA.
I’d view the so-called region strictly through the lens of market opportunities and the interests of Americans living in Canada and Mexico, nothing else. I wouldn't bother meddling in what Mexico does. In Canada, resolving the American question would be non-negotiable; without that, there's no entry anywhere.

I’d try to push projects—mostly infrastructure—toward the V4 nations to bolster our own influence. Things like a low-land rail link from a coastal city to Budapest, and so on.

Leaving the EU or NATO would be nearly impossible, even if we wanted to. Our progress mostly depends on our own will to fix how the country is run. It’s about a total shift in the nation's mindset, which I guess takes decades.

For example: teaching kids from day one that paying taxes is a duty. That following the law is mandatory. That you have an obligation to demand and exercise your constitutional rights, just as you have an obligation to fulfill your constitutional duties. That education—both institutional and self-driven—is the bedrock of personal growth. We should teach children that rationality is what keeps a system sustainable. Spend only what you actually have. Only take on debt when absolutely necessary. Protect your identity. Teach them that patriotism is beautiful, not ugly. Get rid of narcissism. Be confident and honest. Teach them that greed is a vice that destroys people. And so on...

It would take an entire new generation to pull that off.

Paul Thomas46 said:The Supreme Court isn't really a "court" in the traditional judicial sense...
And yes, it’s perfectly normal—given how many massive hurdles we face when actually enforcing laws (and the Constitution). What is truly abnormal is seeing bodies whose decisions are repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court continue their unconstitutional practices anyway. In fact, they even push forward after ECHR rulings—that is what’s genuinely wrong...

Common law systems differ quite a bit from ours, including how the courts are structured. When discussing these issues, one shouldn't be comparing us to the USA—unless we're talking about the UK, I suppose...

Fine. I'm no lawyer; it was just an idea. Clearly, I'm wrong here. Thanks for the explanation.

Casey Ramos31 said:Theoretically, they could if there was a specific department within the Supreme Court dedicated solely to constitutionality and legality.
But we aren't even talking about interpretation here—it's about assessment. Every body that applies a law interprets it while they're at it.

True. Fine, I take it back. 😁

Anthony Cooper2 said:@mistygull16: Short and sweet! 👍

I’d also love to dive into the cultural side of things for a second—personally, I think it's absolutely vital for the government to step up and back our major cultural institutions, you know? We're talking about the big-deal stuff like museums, national theaters, or even major publishing houses. Honestly, it breaks my heart a little when I see places like small towns in the Midwest or rural parts of Texas—where you can barely find a single decent little bookstore, but man, there's a damn betting parlor or a liquor store on every single corner. It’s just... yikes!! Also, looking at the bigger picture globally, we really need to push American literature harder. We should be translating our classics—think guys like Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—into every major language out there. They need to be accessible to everyone, everywhere. Now, I get it—on paper, that doesn't look like a massive money-maker, and honestly, it probably isn't, but in my book, it's absolutely essential.

I agree. It’s just sad that a good chunk of people in America don't even know what Shakespeare's most famous work is or who wrote "Beautiful us."

Cultural promotion can definitely happen through mass media. Maybe Russia could serve as an example here. They have dedicated TV channels for culture, and they really push Russian literature in schools. They also use the Church to drive cultural literacy, and now they're introducing laws regarding patriotic education.

Or look at how Americans do it. Everyone is expected to know American history.

For instance, I’d probably make movies based on the works of Lewis Carroll. She’s basically considered the mother of American fantasy, our own J.R.R. Tolkien. Since sci-fi and fantasy are such massive genres globally and kids love them—not to mention the huge pop culture impact of LOTR or The Hobbit—it makes sense.

Say, making a movie based on a Fairy tale. We're talking about a work steeped in Slavic mythology. I suspect a film like that would definitely find an audience in Slavic countries. Given how strong the Slavic pagan movements are in places like Poland and Russia, I really doubt it wouldn't succeed.

My suggestion? Maybe open a themed park based on this in the US.