Circuit
Writing Letters
Considering the things NESers have done, I think it's safe to conclude that we are all worse than Hitler.
Even more frightening thought... What if we are the unwitting participants in someone else's NES?
Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Considering the things NESers have done, I think it's safe to conclude that we are all worse than Hitler.
Even more frightening thought... What if we are the unwitting participants in someone else's NES?
Well the philosophical question that I find is the following, assuming the infinite multiverse is a real thing:
Are we simply writing events that have occurred in another universe, or do we, by the merit of creating a story, actually create the new universe? Obviously, the latter has disturbing implications.
Are we simply writing events that have occurred in another universe, or do we, by the merit of creating a story, actually create the new universe? Obviously, the latter has disturbing implications.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Well if the universes don't exist until we write about them, that rather defeats their purpose in being an infinite multiverse now donnit?
Fair enough, really that's a philosophical question for someone who has partaken heavily in liquor.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Is there any Hollandist Party in the new Confederation?
@christos200: No, and there will never be, ever.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
well, if there ARE infinite universes, there is probably one in some of them...
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
What about Hollande's mother and his dog?
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
My current ideas on the Confederation's probable political parties:
Traditional Proletarist: Workers' Commonwealth Party (Scandinavian proletarism), Labour Congress Party (Mathis-Douglass proletarism)
Social Proletarist: Socialist Party
Liberal: Septembrist Party, Republican Party
Moderate: --
Conservative: Party of Order, Conservative Party
Militarist: Party of the Confederate People
Religious: Catholic Party (moralism), Christian Democratic Party (protestant solidarity)
Nationalist/Separatist: --
For the immediate future, the defining features of the Septembrist Party vs. the Republican Party are that the Septembrists were the liberals who actually made unification happen, and wish to see the Confederation reincorporate other former Confederate states as well. Having had to do so much compromising during the Conference of Paris (so much goddamn compromising), they'll be far less than idealists, and will likely be pragmatically balancing various interest groups and lobbies, while trying to make keep their project of the Second Confederations united, and growing (probably through lobbying for national welfare services, and of course trying to get other countries to join).
Undoubtedly many people who support the Confederation are not Septembrists ideologically, but are still left-wing, and I'd therefore expect some kind of pro-republican-liberalism party to form, and thus, the Republican Party. Far more idealist, this party would not be quite as interested in expanding the Confederation, so much as adhering to its principles of prosperity, peace, democracy and so forth.
Then on the right. I would expect to basic sentiments from the more conservative side, first, the pragmatic "we're a Confederation now, so might as well run it the right way (the conservative way)", probably embodied in the Party of Order, which I understand under the First Confederation was a conservative party. The second kind of response would have to be one of disdain for reformation (or at least caution and unease), a party which has a country-wide solidarity over local autonomy. This kind of party would probably not advocate for the destruction of the Confederation (I'm sure many conservatives have some nostalgia or sentimental regard for the First Confederation), but would wish to see aristocracy in charge (due to no central monarchy) and would probably emphasis the autonomy of regions - not try and break the Confederation, though neither particularly solidify it. The name Conservative Party sufficiently sums up this in my mind.
Traditional Proletarist: Workers' Commonwealth Party (Scandinavian proletarism), Labour Congress Party (Mathis-Douglass proletarism)
Social Proletarist: Socialist Party
Liberal: Septembrist Party, Republican Party
Moderate: --
Conservative: Party of Order, Conservative Party
Militarist: Party of the Confederate People
Religious: Catholic Party (moralism), Christian Democratic Party (protestant solidarity)
Nationalist/Separatist: --
For the immediate future, the defining features of the Septembrist Party vs. the Republican Party are that the Septembrists were the liberals who actually made unification happen, and wish to see the Confederation reincorporate other former Confederate states as well. Having had to do so much compromising during the Conference of Paris (so much goddamn compromising), they'll be far less than idealists, and will likely be pragmatically balancing various interest groups and lobbies, while trying to make keep their project of the Second Confederations united, and growing (probably through lobbying for national welfare services, and of course trying to get other countries to join).
Undoubtedly many people who support the Confederation are not Septembrists ideologically, but are still left-wing, and I'd therefore expect some kind of pro-republican-liberalism party to form, and thus, the Republican Party. Far more idealist, this party would not be quite as interested in expanding the Confederation, so much as adhering to its principles of prosperity, peace, democracy and so forth.
Then on the right. I would expect to basic sentiments from the more conservative side, first, the pragmatic "we're a Confederation now, so might as well run it the right way (the conservative way)", probably embodied in the Party of Order, which I understand under the First Confederation was a conservative party. The second kind of response would have to be one of disdain for reformation (or at least caution and unease), a party which has a country-wide solidarity over local autonomy. This kind of party would probably not advocate for the destruction of the Confederation (I'm sure many conservatives have some nostalgia or sentimental regard for the First Confederation), but would wish to see aristocracy in charge (due to no central monarchy) and would probably emphasis the autonomy of regions - not try and break the Confederation, though neither particularly solidify it. The name Conservative Party sufficiently sums up this in my mind.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
On the "Catholic Party' (a term the Church would not be pleased with btw), I don't think that moralism really would have grounding in the Confederation, there has never really been the impetus for a natural moralist movement.
If anything, I would suggest that the natural "Catholic Religious" party in the confederation would be not moralist, but traditionalist (sort of like you get in Sardinia, Corsica, Italy and Czechia). This ideological platform supports the role of religion in public, civic and personal life, but better reflects the historical legacy of the region.
Its values would probably include support for legitimate authority (monarchism as per the history of local monarchy) and natural law moral understandings; localism, regionalism and federalism (like the Fueros principle in Carlism, and reflecting the nature of the French region in this timeline); The patriarchal family and Catholic moral principles (in opposition to Occitanian humanism and proletarism in particular) and generally support tradition as per the name and the idea of certain absolute moral truths, upholding the idea of change outside of absolutes necessarily has to be gradual for the common good (rather than rapid and socially engineered like you see in moralism, and reflecting the influence of anarchists, and Hollandist stupidity in recent history in the region),.
If anything, I would suggest that the natural "Catholic Religious" party in the confederation would be not moralist, but traditionalist (sort of like you get in Sardinia, Corsica, Italy and Czechia). This ideological platform supports the role of religion in public, civic and personal life, but better reflects the historical legacy of the region.
Its values would probably include support for legitimate authority (monarchism as per the history of local monarchy) and natural law moral understandings; localism, regionalism and federalism (like the Fueros principle in Carlism, and reflecting the nature of the French region in this timeline); The patriarchal family and Catholic moral principles (in opposition to Occitanian humanism and proletarism in particular) and generally support tradition as per the name and the idea of certain absolute moral truths, upholding the idea of change outside of absolutes necessarily has to be gradual for the common good (rather than rapid and socially engineered like you see in moralism, and reflecting the influence of anarchists, and Hollandist stupidity in recent history in the region),.
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
@Jehoshua: I was told by EQ that there existed moralists in Occitania, though not particularly organized or all that motivated, and was a Catholic Party in the First Confederation, so I assumed a lot of moralist influence would be taking place within those who would participate in another Catholic Party. I suppose you could be right that a simply traditionalist attitude would prevail though, even if modified by more moralist elements.
And by the way, there is no such thing as Occitanian proletarism really, they all turned liberal or went anarchist (as per the Commune's Manifesto in the update you may have read).
And by the way, there is no such thing as Occitanian proletarism really, they all turned liberal or went anarchist (as per the Commune's Manifesto in the update you may have read).
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
hmm, If we assume that traditionalism is the more natural pathway for a Catholic political movement in the confederation, I would hazard a guess that the miniscule moralist group that EQ confirmed is present simply joined that party and became a factional aspect of the traditionalist party (ironically the "left" faction, in the sense that it uses a more liberal lexicon and tactical methodology) noting that the Catholic Party in the original Confederation was almost certainly traditionalist considering Moralism did not exist during that period.
I didn't say there was Occitanian Proletarism, I said there was Occitanian Humanism AND Proletarism. The Confederation isn't just Occitania no? It was an honest misunderstanding to make though thinking I meant (Occitanian Humanism and [Occitanian] Proletarism).
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
Ah I understand, an honest mistake indeed.
And towards the Catholic Party, I guess the moralists would be minor, though b/c I haven't been made aware of traditionalists who weren't just conservatives, I wouldn't know what proportion they'd be really.
And towards the Catholic Party, I guess the moralists would be minor, though b/c I haven't been made aware of traditionalists who weren't just conservatives, I wouldn't know what proportion they'd be really.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
I think the ambiguity regarding traditionalist and conservatives is due to the fact that during the 19th century and perhaps before the great war in many places, to be conservative was to be traditionalist since that was the established order. Yet over time, in the Confederate lands, we see that there has been a shift in the status quo towards a much more liberal paradigm. Thus presumably we have seen over the years a differentiation between Traditionalists (those who's positions are theoretically developed) and modern conservatives (as we see IRL as an example) who act upon a modus vivendi to maintain the status quo rather than on a theoretical understanding of "how the world is and how it ought to be".
Perhaps in other words a "conservative" as you would call it, would say on social issues that modernism is dangerous and careful trepidation is necessary in moving forward, thus the restraining support of the conservative for the status quo. The "traditionalist" would on social issues, say that (in the confederations case) morality is objectively defined, and that a rightly ordered society should always orient itself towards moral truth. Both the conservative and the traditionalist would resist change in moral areas (noting that the Catholic moral system is the normative one at present in the Confederation, save for humanist circles) but they would have very different rationales behind their opposition despite the outwardly identical moral policy. The conservative would also likely be prepared to shift moral ground somewhat following dominant societal trends if they shifted away from traditional grounds (although many conservatives would still likely be opposed to those shifts even if the majority held them, as a matter of personal principle), whereas the Traditionalist would absolutely not.
Perhaps in other words a "conservative" as you would call it, would say on social issues that modernism is dangerous and careful trepidation is necessary in moving forward, thus the restraining support of the conservative for the status quo. The "traditionalist" would on social issues, say that (in the confederations case) morality is objectively defined, and that a rightly ordered society should always orient itself towards moral truth. Both the conservative and the traditionalist would resist change in moral areas (noting that the Catholic moral system is the normative one at present in the Confederation, save for humanist circles) but they would have very different rationales behind their opposition despite the outwardly identical moral policy. The conservative would also likely be prepared to shift moral ground somewhat following dominant societal trends if they shifted away from traditional grounds (although many conservatives would still likely be opposed to those shifts even if the majority held them, as a matter of personal principle), whereas the Traditionalist would absolutely not.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Moralism did exist back then, in its formative stages, and there was even a small moralist-protestant movement, iirc, seeking to apply moralism's ideas rather confusedly to Calvinist religious principles.
Besides the point that the 1930s were a golden age of Moralism worldwide, especially early on. The spread of ideology to Western Europe in the revived movement on the wake of a near dominance of South American politics was an obvious outcome. I think that even if Moralism in name is not leading nations, the lessons taught by it and the ideology, especially Brazilian, serves as a counter-weight to proletarist social policy.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
Moralism did exist back then, in its formative stages, and there was even a small moralist-protestant movement, iirc, seeking to apply moralism's ideas rather confusedly to Calvinist religious principles.
I am referring to the era prior too, during and immediately after the great war when I refer to the non-existence of moralism, as this was the period when the confederation was at its height (and when the Catholic religious party was active) and not in the throes of war and eventual dissolution. Even towards the end of the confederation (when moralism did exist) I don't recall it being present outside of Latin America. The first we hear of moralism in Europe is when it takes root in Spain and Portugal, and possibly in Poland (although that seems more nationalism based in religion than moralist). So sure, perhaps towards the end there might've been isolated proto-moralists in the confederation, but they are so inconsequential as to be functionally non-existent.
-
@Luckymoose: The Spread of Moralism to Europe primarily occurred after the fall of the Confederation, other than that I don't dispute your comment that moralist anti-proletarism has influenced the conservative wing of European politics (note Italy re-banning Proletarism). Oh, and I'm sure Moralism can re-dominate south American politics, It just needs to be more proactive in countering liberal tyranny (note, election rigging in Uruguay) and possible fraud or at the very least proletarist/anti-moralist funding (a la Chile).
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
It is increasingly unlikely that hard Moralism will have a major revival in South America unless something dramatic happens in Brazil's neighbors. Venezuela is the final remaining Moralist government on the continent besides Brazil, with a few hold outs in Central America. I find it far more likely, and indeed more interesting, to see how Moralism shifts over the 1940's. It could easily maintain a majority in Brazil if it slacks up on areas of concern while doubling down on popular policies. This, of course, assumes that some political upheaval in South America doesn't send a large majority looking to the Moralists as a way forward (I would love that).
But outside of South America, I am most interested in Moralism in Italy and the Confederation. Galicia, Portugal, and Spain have been influenced by Moralism, as have a number of African governments, but the slow spread of ideology east is where the money's at. Should Italy shift ideologically towards Brazil it would be a major boon for me and Moralism in Europe. I believe that both of those states are far too proletarist for Moralism to dominate, but it could quickly turn into a two party system if conservatives and disenfranchised proletarists form coalitions around Moralists and the Church.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
I disagree with you on South America, what we're seeing isn't the slow extinction of moralism I think but rather a natural ideological fluctuation as one force temporarily gives way to another. Moralism was for a period ascendant, but now we see that after periods in power moralist governments are falling to the opposition in Uruguay, Colombia and Chile becoming in their turn the main opposition parties of those countries. Now of course there is the question of liberal tyranny, a la vote rigging and fraud, but short of that its quite likely that the tide once again will shift the other way in its turn. (and repeated electoral fraud would serve the moralist propaganda and discredit the liberal factions. The liberals could call Uruguay an aberration for example, but if similar things occur in Chile not so much, and the rhetoric that liberalism/proletarism ultimately leads to tyranny would gain validation)
I would also note for example that moralism is growing substantially in Aztlan (helped by the emergence of Aztec pagans) and seems to be remaining stable in Central America and Brazil. So its not like its a dead force. That said, it should definitely dispense with foolish 'not supported by the papacy" policies like prohibition. I mean that's positively protestant!
-
As to Europe, aside from the Iberian Peninsula where moralism is present in strength I disagree that moralism is or could be a major influence (even if its rhetoric is used against proletarism). The natural pathway for religious politics in Europe is traditionalism, referring to the continents long Catholic history and to the established systems of monarchy, localism/regionalism and federalism and tradition that are strongly rooted in the life of the continent. This I think is the natural trajectory of opposition to anti-tradition liberalism and proletarism that is present in Europe, and indeed is likely what we are seeing from the Italian Conservatives in their bid to excise the proletarist tumour from the body politic (taking advantage of the revelation of Scandinavia supplying arms to proletarists who seek to overthrow the Italian state)
I would also note for example that moralism is growing substantially in Aztlan (helped by the emergence of Aztec pagans) and seems to be remaining stable in Central America and Brazil. So its not like its a dead force. That said, it should definitely dispense with foolish 'not supported by the papacy" policies like prohibition. I mean that's positively protestant!
-
As to Europe, aside from the Iberian Peninsula where moralism is present in strength I disagree that moralism is or could be a major influence (even if its rhetoric is used against proletarism). The natural pathway for religious politics in Europe is traditionalism, referring to the continents long Catholic history and to the established systems of monarchy, localism/regionalism and federalism and tradition that are strongly rooted in the life of the continent. This I think is the natural trajectory of opposition to anti-tradition liberalism and proletarism that is present in Europe, and indeed is likely what we are seeing from the Italian Conservatives in their bid to excise the proletarist tumour from the body politic (taking advantage of the revelation of Scandinavia supplying arms to proletarists who seek to overthrow the Italian state)
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
The natural middle ground between proletarism and traditionalism is moralism.
