Capto Iugulum: 1940 - 1959
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,078
Yay! He's alive.
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
From the Confederation
To the World
CC Vinland
To guarantee security on both sides of the Atlantic, we happily forward this treaty of defence with our friends in Vinland.
Johansborg Commitment
The Confederation of Continental States and the Kingdom of Vinland hereby agree to a defensive pact, in which both signatory states will come to each others' aid in the event of an unprovoked attack by another country.
To the World
CC Vinland
To guarantee security on both sides of the Atlantic, we happily forward this treaty of defence with our friends in Vinland.
Johansborg Commitment
The Confederation of Continental States and the Kingdom of Vinland hereby agree to a defensive pact, in which both signatory states will come to each others' aid in the event of an unprovoked attack by another country.
Spoiler :
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
-
This treaty proposed by His Majesty the King of Mayaland to the Papal States, We agree too wholeheartedly in the interests of furthering the good relations that exist between Mayaland and the Papal States, and providing economic opportunities to both our nations peoples.
signed ~ Pius X, PP.
Spoiler :
DuneBear
Warlord
Signed,
Janaab Pech, King of Mayaland
Janaab Pech, King of Mayaland
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
Traditionalism and Progress
~ An Except from the Traditionalist Manifesto
~ An Except from the Traditionalist Manifesto
-
The term "progressive" is usually associated with leftism, those schools of thought, liberalism, proletarism that have risen to such prominence in this current century. We don't think we should allow this association to stand unchallenged for there are certain ways in which traditionalism better serves the cause of progress (acknowledging that progress is neither linear, or inevitable) than does leftism.
Now firstly, it's true that there are reasons why leftism is more associated with an ideal of progress than traditionalism. Leftists assume that the past represents an injustice that is to be remedied in the present and future. Traditionalists, on the other hand, recognise values that are enduring across the ages. There are masculine ideals, for instance, which were as valid hundreds of years ago as they are today and likewise the virtue of religion which is valid over all time. But leftism, even though it is oriented to progress as a form of moral improvement (albeit towards a morality that is in many ways erroneous) in society, does not always bring about progress. Sometimes it is clearly responsible for forms of social regress and degradation.
Look at what is happening to the West culturally for example. The Western middle-classes once read the poems of Wordsworth and listened to the music of Elgar and the other great composers. Nowadays we are trying to figure out ways to limit the exposure of young children to Tango and Swing, and shield them from the latest explicit cinematography coming out of Rosario. Or consider that men's real wages have stalled over recent decades, and for those without university degrees have even gone backwards as industrialisation has advanced, thus leaving much of the working class in deplorable conditions, forced to work long hours or take multiple jobs to make ends meet and resulting in a crisis in workplace conditions throughout much of the world. This stands in the face of the liberal exaltation of the virtues of the market, and the elite liberal consensus that an individualist freedom, where each person is at liberty to make himself in the market, leads to general improvement of societies and actual benefits for all. Reality attests that most often it is only the wealthy few who benefit from liberalism, leaving the interests of the community as a whole, and particularly the working classes subordinated to the economic interests of the upper class, who profit from liberal individualism and the removal of obligations to community and society it produces in the economic and business sphere which allows them to maximise profits through ever more crass and unrestricted forms of materialism.
The cultural and economic situation likewise also testifies to the hypocrisy of much of proletarism as a manifestation of leftism, where the real good of the worker is subordinated to service to the state and the cause of revolution and modernism. This was observed most readily in Catalonia, where the proletarist government failed to respond to the actual human needs of the nations workers despite their protests and clear suffering, and it is clearly manifest historically in the numerous proletarist incited conflicts, where the cause of the ideology was put first above the actual consequences of war and violent sedition on the lives of the people the proletarists alleged themselves. Namely their actions in numerous instances resulted in real economic deprivation of conflict wracked nations, and in a human cost written in the blood of the slain, and thus an actual decline in the lot of the worker.
All these events lead us to one way in which traditionalism is better able to serve real progress in society. Namely, since traditionalists do identify with particular communities, with nations, Churches, regions, towns, villages, parishes and families, with actual communities that are not products of individuals but are pre-existent, and rooted in personal relationships between people, traditionalism is naturally determined to take these communities forward, and to preserve the best that these communities have achieved, that is to say tradition, whether in terms of moral standards, material conditions of life, scientific and technological innovations or cultural achievements while engaging in the cultivation of the good in these communities into the future. Traditionalism is not as reductive as the left when it comes to the principles on which a community is founded. Traditionalism focusses on coming to the best understanding of a complex order of being, one which incorporates the natural, social and spiritual dimensions of existence. For traditionalists, it is important to balance a range of goods in society, material, social and spiritual, in a way that allows the framework of society to fit together and for that society to be carried forward into the future harmoniously and in solidarity. Thus traditionalists advocate the pursuit peace and avoidance of war in order that society may be perpetuated and be at liberty to develop in a hermeneutic of continuity with its traditions and in respect for human life and its inherent value. It is also why we propose a healthy separatism between different peoples in order to avoid the levelling "inclusiveness" of the liberal left, which by reducing the importance of personal ties, makes us interchangeable with others and degrades human obligations to each other. Obligations that including the support of our fellow men in times of disaster through acts of charity, something clearly observed today by the praiseworthy work of the Red Crescent, which is rooted in Islamic tradition and solidarity, and in an understanding of the obligations common humanity has on individuals and local communities, because humanity itself represents one universal family and is not merely a collection of atomistic instances. Leftism in contrast, in the name of "freedom" imposes a certain kind of unacknowledged domination, and one which in the long run tends to dissolve traditional human ties and to impoverish social and cultural relationships. The Left, while imposing through state power regimes that declare everyone free to pursue whatever they take to be their own good, deprives most people of the possibility of understanding their lives as a quest for the discovery and achievement of the good, especially by the way in which it attempts to discredit those traditional forms of human community within which this project has to be embodied.
Leftists also tend to look to more simple and abstracted principles of "justice" (rather than to a holistic order of being) which are gradually implemented in society regardless of the negative effects on the standards of that society or its long-term viability, and without regard for the harmony of the whole. This is clear by the numerous examples of conflict and humanitarian tragedy that have emerged from leftist ideologies pursuit of "justice", be it the many proletarist uprisings to the liberal enthusiasm for the first Great War. Even today some liberals in neutral nations strongly urge, purely on ideological principle, that their countries enter the current great war in order to fulfil the precepts of "justice" regardless of the human cost this fulfilment would entail in terms of property, peace and human life, and regardless of the risk this has to the very perpetuation of their own societies. The left through exalting "justice", thus produces disharmony, both in the form of class conflict perpetuated by both proletarism with its militarism and liberalism via the economic disparity produced by the radical individualism and the exaltation of personal autonomy and will it engenders. Disharmony and conflict furthermore is exacerbated the militant and puritanical moralism inherent to leftism which is deeply intolerant of anything beyond its own moral paradigm, which observably incites and inflames international conflict, and domestic divisions. Leftism thus can be seen, in the name of "freedom" to impose a certain kind of unacknowledged domination, and one which in the long run tends to dissolve traditional human ties and to impoverish social and cultural relationships. The Left, while imposing through state power where it can regimes that declare everyone free to pursue whatever they take to be their own good, deprives most people of the possibility of understanding their lives as a quest for the discovery and achievement of the good, especially by the way in which it attempts to discredit those traditional forms of human community within which this project has to be embodied.
If we explicate this assertion, traditionalists are more oriented than leftists to the idea that we embody essences that connect us to a larger good which provides a path of self-development through which we achieve excellence in character and conduct. We are oriented, in other words, to a positive vision of self-development and achievement in the world and into eternity, rather than to the idea that our choices don't matter or have no higher significance beyond being a manifestation of ones personal autonomy, or as an exercise of creative self-actualisation as the Occitanian humanists uphold through their so-called "romanticism". This contrasts with the trend in leftism where there is moral status attached to being the most oppressed or victimised, be it blacks in the negrotariat or simply "the people", a term which ever remains amorphous and is often code for the adherents of a particular ideology. This mentality can have the effect of encouraging people to search out ways in which they are weak or incapable, rather than focusing on building strength, or seeking avenues of co-operation, solidarity and subsidiarity to resolve human problems and engender actual improvement in the state of things. This is because by producing a psychological pathology of victimhood, the left (particularly proletarism) effectively renounces any compromise with those it sees as "oppressor", preventing diplomatic means of conflict resolution from consideration.
Traditionalism comparatively due to its belief in the actual value of community and that the individual as a moral agent has a social responsibility to the community (greater to lesser in terms of proximity, extending from ones own household to all of humanity) encourages the cultivation of individual excellence and societal solidarity, while affirming that the individual has real purpose and meaning through the actual bonds that unite him with his fellow human beings. Thus in upholding that man is not an atomistic agent, or a cog in the machine, traditionalism sees that man has a duty to seek peace and concord with his fellow human beings. Is not this a much greater thing than the liberal assertion that what matters in life matters in life is that we make ourselves in the market, or the proletarist assertion that men are subordinated to the good of the syndicated proletariat and the ideological cause? The left reduces man to a simple actualisation of will while denying that he has intrinsic value, Traditionalism upholds that he matters because he is a man, and has duties to his fellow men by virtue of this intrinsic worth. This is a truly progressive thing in a world in which millions are sent to their deaths in the meat-churner or industrialised war as if they were but pawns on a chessboard at the behest of their leaders....
This is the 48 hour warning to get orders in.
Quisani
Gaming Person
Signed Emperor Taisho
DuneBear
Warlord
Signed,
Janaab Pech, King of Mayaland
Janaab Pech, King of Mayaland
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
The Florida-United States Peace Talks of 1940
With the election to the Floridian presidency of President Graham, a member of the Reform Party who was elected on his platform of peaceful reincorporation into the United States. Naturally, American politicians and diplomats were thrilled at this news. Despite the legislature still being in politically unfriendly hands, the President's mandate was clear. Peace feelers were sent out, and the terms for these initial talks were made much less severe than many American politicians felt they could get away with.
Diplomat Harry Truman's terms were as such: 1.) Florida immediately renounce her sovereignty and become reincorporated into the United States of America; 2.) Florida's elected leadership are given complete amnesty and permitted to run for government positions in the new America; 3.) Florida be given all of the rights and privileges normally given to states, once the incorporation process has completed and the region is declared stable.
The amnesty notion in particular was met with significant derision from Truman's enemies: why should we give any ground to the prole-lovers, the hated enemies? They'll regain their house seats and undermine our country. But most agreed that the measure was conservative and befitting the spirit of reunification, especially considering Florida and the United States' historically good relations. Many still felt as if the talks would go on for much longer, because, indeed, that is the nature of such things - but it was a good start.
The response, however, shocked all. President Graham responded that he had no desire whatsoever to make peace, much less surrender, and that he would fight to the bitter end - it was, after all, why he ran for the presidency. He would never make peace, and long after every inch of ground was taken, he would fight from the hillsides. So it was that the Floridian government which seemed divided between pro- and anti-US factions was, in fact, united in the toil of neverending war against the American invaders.
With the election to the Floridian presidency of President Graham, a member of the Reform Party who was elected on his platform of peaceful reincorporation into the United States. Naturally, American politicians and diplomats were thrilled at this news. Despite the legislature still being in politically unfriendly hands, the President's mandate was clear. Peace feelers were sent out, and the terms for these initial talks were made much less severe than many American politicians felt they could get away with.
Diplomat Harry Truman's terms were as such: 1.) Florida immediately renounce her sovereignty and become reincorporated into the United States of America; 2.) Florida's elected leadership are given complete amnesty and permitted to run for government positions in the new America; 3.) Florida be given all of the rights and privileges normally given to states, once the incorporation process has completed and the region is declared stable.
The amnesty notion in particular was met with significant derision from Truman's enemies: why should we give any ground to the prole-lovers, the hated enemies? They'll regain their house seats and undermine our country. But most agreed that the measure was conservative and befitting the spirit of reunification, especially considering Florida and the United States' historically good relations. Many still felt as if the talks would go on for much longer, because, indeed, that is the nature of such things - but it was a good start.
The response, however, shocked all. President Graham responded that he had no desire whatsoever to make peace, much less surrender, and that he would fight to the bitter end - it was, after all, why he ran for the presidency. He would never make peace, and long after every inch of ground was taken, he would fight from the hillsides. So it was that the Floridian government which seemed divided between pro- and anti-US factions was, in fact, united in the toil of neverending war against the American invaders.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
From the office of President Graham
President Graham was never approached or offered any terms of surrender beyond a vague insinuation which was fittingly replied. Indeed, an American communiqué arrived which merely demanded for negotiations of surrender to be opened.
The reasons for the President's rejection to open talks, if they must be disclosed, are both the inexistence of an American proposal and the fact that President Graham needs Congressional approval in order to embark in diplomatic questions of such a great impact in the future of the nation.
DuneBear
Warlord
Spoiler :
Signed,
Janaab Pech, King of Mayaland
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Signed, First Minister Victor Simoes, in the Name of the Emperor and the People of Brazil
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Cannot send orders until certain PMs are sent from certain people. Relevant persons are aware of their identities. 
m.t.cicero
Good Kid
The Greater Indian Raj formally declares that a state of war exists between it and the Allied Powers and demands reparation for the following:
For the continuing occupation of rightfully Indian territory by Germany and Great Britain, which preclude the realization of a truly unified and free Indian nation
For the continued oppression of Indian peoples by the German and British governments, who exploit the populations of their territories not for the good of the people but for the good of the metropole.
For the continued oppression of the peoples of Southeast Asia by the British, who do the same there as in India.
For the imminent threat which the surrounding European colonies present to Indian security and sovereignty, providing these perfidious powers a staging ground for interference and incursion into the Indian nation.
For the British involvement in precipitating Civil War in India, with the goal of crippling forever the potential of the Indian nation and extending perpetually British dominance in Southeast Asia.
For the betrayal of the Indian nation by Iran, who abandoned India in her time of civil war and continued to grow closer to Britain over the course of said civil war.
For the continuing occupation of rightfully Indian territory by Germany and Great Britain, which preclude the realization of a truly unified and free Indian nation
For the continued oppression of Indian peoples by the German and British governments, who exploit the populations of their territories not for the good of the people but for the good of the metropole.
For the continued oppression of the peoples of Southeast Asia by the British, who do the same there as in India.
For the imminent threat which the surrounding European colonies present to Indian security and sovereignty, providing these perfidious powers a staging ground for interference and incursion into the Indian nation.
For the British involvement in precipitating Civil War in India, with the goal of crippling forever the potential of the Indian nation and extending perpetually British dominance in Southeast Asia.
For the betrayal of the Indian nation by Iran, who abandoned India in her time of civil war and continued to grow closer to Britain over the course of said civil war.
Lokki242
Emperor
Iran finds the Indian reasoning for its demands laughable, when it clearly just wishes to take part in the surrounding of our nation. We will never give in to you. We fight for Iran.
No more order revisions will be accepted beyond this point. I am still accepting new orders.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Orders will be in this afternoon.
