Announcement: America 3.0

Hearty congratulations to Lexington Green and James Bennett of Chicago Boyz on their book deal!

America 3.0

James C. Bennett, author of The Anglosphere Challenge (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), and Michael J. Lotus (who blogs at Chicagoboyz.net as “Lexington Green”), are proud to announce the signing of a contract with Encounter Books of New York to publish their forthcoming book America 3.0.

America 3.0 gives readers the real historical foundations of our liberty, free enterprise, and family life.  Based on a new understanding our of our past, and on little known modern scholarship, America 3.0 offers long-term strategies to restore and strengthen American liberty, prosperity and security in the years ahead.

….America 3.0 shows that our current problems can be and must be transcended with a transition to a new America 3.0, based on modern technology, decentralized communities, and self-reliant families, and a reassertion of fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally limited government and free market economics.   Ironically the future America 3.0 will in many ways be closer to the original vision of the Founders than the fading America 2.0.

America 3.0 gives readers an accurate, and hopeful, assessment of our current crisis.  It also spotlights the powerful forces arrayed in opposition to the needed reform.  These groups include ideological leftists in media and the academy, politically connected businesses, and the public employees unions.  However, as powerful as these groups are, they have become vulnerable as the external conditions change.  A correct understanding of our history and culture, which America 3.0 provides, shows their opposition will be futile.  The new, pro-freedom, mass political movement, which is aligned with the true needs and desires of Americans, is going to succeed….

Read the rest here.

10 comments on this post.
  1. J.ScottShipman:

    This is great! Congratulations!

  2. morgan:

    Congratulations, should be a great lead and am looking forward to it.

  3. Lexington Green:

    Now … scribble, scribble, scribble Jim and Lex!  

  4. Madhu:

    Congrats!
    .
    Okay, between zen’s recent publication in Pragati and your book, Lex, I am digging up some writing of mine and getting to work. Why oh why can’t there be more than 24 hours in a day? If I go back to writing regularly outside of work, I have to hold off on the blog commenting.
    .
    And I will not Tweet unless I go back to the Twitfiction.
    .
    At any rate, congrats and get scribbling!
    .
    – Madhu

  5. zen:

    I say Doc Madhu should become a writer 🙂

  6. david ronfeldt:

    i’m interested in what comes next for social evolution, and my perspective — “TIMN” (tribes, hierarchical institutions, networks) — says it will be about the rise of the network form of organization, and thus probably also about the emergence of a new network-based sector alongside the established public and private sectors.  with this in mind, i continue to scan across the political spectrum to see who else might be thinking in such terms.  i’ve found some places on the left, mostly having to do with p2p networks and prospects for growth of a commons sector.  but i’ve found nothing on the right, where there’s lots of interest in social networking, but little in the organizational potentials that interest me.
    .
    what about your effort?  it looks like it’s mostly about tribes (e.g., families), states, and markets.  but over at chicagoboyz, lex once commented as follows:  “My dream is of a Tea Party so large and well funded it can serve as a perpetual monitor of the leviathan. Transparency and crowdsourcing will help.”  this mention of “monitor” sounds consistent with john keane’s idea of “monitory democracy” — a concept mostly about the growth of scrutinizing and monitory functions in civil society in recent decades, partly tied to the rising strength of networked ngos in many issue areas.  if that’s a direction in which you are headed, i’d hope to hear more.

  7. zen:

    David, where does the political spectrum "Right" and "Left" fit in terms of your TIMN model? Is there a political tendency to favor or adopt particular forms?

  8. Madhu:

    zenster – I don’t know about being a writer but I do need to get to work on a lot of little projects that I keep putting off.
    .
    Btw, I have no drug you into the whole "Prine-Ucko" debate at SWJ and KoW (look in the comments section). I want to know if there is a metanalysis that has been done of the various "surge" papers and if such a study is feasible in this area. I know of metanalysis from medicine but am not familiar with the areas of social science, etc.
    .
    Any of zen’s readers know? Thanks.
    .
    (I will probably go back to writing for my old blog and working on the twitfiction. Some people golf for relaxation, I like to scribble silly things instead).

  9. david ronfeldt:

    zen asks:  “David, where does the political spectrum "Right" and "Left" fit in terms of your TIMN model? Is there a political tendency to favor or adopt particular forms?”
    .
    my view of timn is that, across the ages, the rise of each new form leads to the creation of new ideologies (new isms and ocracies) and a reshaping of the ideological spectrum.  my inclination is to dissect an ideology to see how it treats each form:  what are the balances and imbalances, the limits and excesses, the combinations (hybrids?) that are favored, etc.  each form can be viewed and used in both right and left (or conservative and liberal) ways.  
    .
    i started to get into this in long-ago blog posts (parts 1 and 2) that i’ve still not wrapped up (with delayed part 3).  my elaborations are here:
    .
    http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2009/10/timn-some-implications-for-thinking_19.html
    .
    http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2009/10/timn-some-implications-for-thinking.html
    .
    as for the network form (not to mention the earlier forms), my stance is pretty much like it would be toward a technology:  it’s not inherently biased to favor left or right, but gets used to assist and redefine both/either.  
    .
    at present, the left appears to be ahead of the right in terms of ideological thinking and maneuvering how to transform society in network terms.  one example is the concept of commonism (yes, with two o’s, no u).  from the right, i’ve seen notions about stewardship that look newish and networkish, but not with much momentum behind them.  but maybe i’m not looking in the best places.
    .
    the notion of monitory democracy comes from a scholar who leans left.  but i see no reason why it can’t/won’t be picked up on the right, some of whose actors are already heavily into it, though not by that name

  10. zen:

    Hi David

    “as for the network form (not to mention the earlier forms), my stance is pretty much like it would be toward a technology:  it’s not inherently biased to favor left or right, but gets used to assist and redefine both/either.  
    .
    at present, the left appears to be ahead of the right in terms of ideological thinking and maneuvering how to transform society in network terms. ”

    I think that you are right on both counts. My caveat would be the religious reactionaries, particularly the Islamists, who gravitate to a hybrid of network and artificial neo-tribalism (or actual, authentic, tribalism).