Capto Iugulum

@TLJ - Aid to Royalists or Proletarists?

OOC:The True Hungarian government. Highlighted for clarification

To Hungary
From Russia


Due to your current battle against the Proletarist scum that attempt to usurp your nation, we hereby waive the final payments of reparations from the Great War. Any and all aid we can offer you in your struggle is at your disposal
 
Excerpt from Prime Minister James Ramsay MacDonald’s New Year’s Day Parade speech, January 1st, 1911. This speech is historically invoked as the mission statement of the policy of isolation and domestic development carried out by MacDonald’s government, often rhetorically referred to as the “MacDonald Doctrine.”

“Good afternoon, fellow members of Parliament, and good people of London, the United Kingdom, and all visitors from abroad. We stand at the gates of what surely promises to be a momentous new decade. The people have voted and decided that the service of the Empire party* – invaluable in times of war – is no longer required in the present time. And the baton has been passed most amicably to Labour to take up the mantle of peacetime governance. And to you, good people of the most esteemed British Empire, allow me to announce that now dawns a new time of peace and progressivism for the United Kingdom.

“First of all I would like to speak to the issues that no doubt weigh heavily on the minds of many citizens of the United Kingdom today, namely with respect to the ongoing difficulties in Europe and the state of the Empire abroad. The Empire party has adopted, as its official policy these past few years, the philosophy of containment with respect to the Russian Empire. And it would be far beyond me to say that it was not a policy made with good judgement. However, I and my fellow party-members also see it as fundamentally misguided.

“The esteemed Empire Parliament of years past has sought to arm Russia’s neighbors against the possibility of her recurring aggression, and to that end has stirred a veritable hornet’s nest in Europe. But I say to you that the concerns of Europe should not be our own, and that by wading abreast of the regimes which hitherto were quite content to tolerate Russia’s aggression, we stand the risk of turning them against us in what should not be our conflict. When we moved against Russia in Poland, we began this self-destructive path of saber-rattling and never-ending aggression, which now has the death of an entire nation to answer for. Despite our victory in the Great War, our navy – once the pride of the Empire – remains sunken and pillaged, and it is hard to say what the future looks like. Our peace remains tenuous as we continually send vicious missive after vicious missive towards Paris, Moscow, and any who align with them. Before Labour came to power in Parliament, the Empire party had signed a compact in blood with the German Economic League. All of this done in the name of containing Russia.

“I tell you of this not to delegitimize the noble efforts of the Empire party in dethroning the Spanish Empire and in asserting the United Kingdom’s place in the sun, nor do I tell you of this to feebly absolve the Russian Empire of their crimes. But our meddling in European affairs will not, can not, ensure prosperity for the British empire, let alone prosperity for our allies. We will leave Europe to the Europeans, or the wolves, if they prefer. We will remain vigilant, as always, because the future is uncertain, but we will no longer arm the people of Europe with cause to move against us. It is time to focus inwards, to stop facilitating aggression abroad, and to return to the people of Britain the wealth that they helped create...”

*The official name of what is colloquially called the Union Jack Party. Although official records and most Parliamentary proceedings tended to refer to the party as the Empire Party, media as well as the general population of England often referred to them as “Jacks,” “Union Jacks,” “Empire Jacks,” or “the Union Jack Party.” Most contemporary records correspondingly refer to them as such, however this author will note with interest that the habit of calling them “Jacks” never caught on outside of England, Wales, and Australia; the population of Scotland in particular is notable for its stubborn insistence on referring to the party by their proper name. Prime Minister MacDonald’s decision to refer to them as the “Empire party,” despite it being inconsistent with English delicacy, no doubt owes itself to his Scottish heritage.

---

To: German Economic League
From: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


We would like to renegotiate our mutual defensive pact. We are afraid it is no longer in our best interests to maintain it.
 
From: The German Economic League
To: The United Kingdom of Great Britain


If you wish to renege on our previous agreement, what is there to renegotiate?
 
To: The German Economic League
From: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


We had hoped for a bilateral canceling of the agreement, as opposed to unceremoniously and without prior warning failing to honor the agreement.
 
From: The German Economic League
To: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


While we take note of your hoping to leave on a somewhat good note, we can't exactly say we agree with your decision. We don't wish for any type of hostility with you, though we must say that turning your back on the continent condemns millions to a rather horrible fate, and will come back to bite you should the Russian horde decide to pillage Europe once again. This move also seems to go far against the rhetoric you put forth in your discussions with the Franco-Burgundian Confederation last year, and will make it hard for the people of the German nations, and all of those affiliated with us, through the Phalanx, GEL or other means to take your word with much more than a grain of salt in the future.

EDIT: I am horrible with grammar. Don't fault me. :p
 
OOC: Still a GP, despite everything. I am quite pleased with that. I am pretty impressed that the FBC is the second most powerful country in the world - thats actually quite surprising. I guess an immense army goes a long way.
 
Flanders would remind all members and observers of the League to turn their attention to the General Assembly (OOC: the League group) at this time.
 
To: The German Economic League
From: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


We understand your concern, although the new government has decided to reverse what we see as the disastrous policies of the old government. Rattling Russia's sabers is what will condemn millions to death. We do not consider it responsible to ally with any of Russia's neighbors since, as with Poland, such an act will stir their ire against you. In the case of Poland, it destroyed that nation. We would just as soon keep our business separate from Europe's, in the hope that we never again become entangled in an alliance network that causes the death of our nation's dearest friends and allies.

We wish to maintain close relations with the Germans, but the time of alliance networks is dead and gone. Working with the League and Franco-Burgundy offers a real possibility to securing your freedom against Russia. But the UK's role in continental affairs has overstayed its welcome.
 
To: Bulgaria
From: Free Proletarists of Hungary


It would be of best interests to every party if you proclaim who is your enemy and friend.

Bulgaria supports the rightful king of Hungary. No Proletarist rabble will ever receive the recognition of the Bulgarian nation.
 
Against Proletarianism

---

In light of the increasing prominence and danger to the world of the error of Proletarianism, the Holy Office of the Universal Inquisition has seen fit to issue a decree in answer to the queries of some of the faithful in regards to the possibility of the association of the faithful to proletarian groups. This is particularly poignant considering the continuing events in Catholic Hungary, and the recent speeches of the Holy Father who illumined the faithful as to the danger proletariansm and its underlying relativism poses to the virtues of true religion.

-

DECRETUM ADVERSAM PROLETARISMUM.

-

Q.1 Utrum licitum sit, partibus Proletaristarum nomen dare vel eisdem favorem praestare.

R. Negative: Proletarismum enim est materialisticus et antichristianus; proletaristarum autem duces, etsi verbis quandoque profitentur se religionem non oppugnare, se tamen, sive doctrina sive actione, Deo veraeque religioni et Ecclesia Christi sere infensos esse ostendunt.


Q.2 Utrum licitum sit edere, propagare vel legere libros, periodica, diaria vel folia, qual doctrine vel actioni proletaristarum patrocinantur, vel in eis scribere.

R. Negative: Prohibentur enim ipso iure


Q.3 Utrum Christifideles, qui actus, de quibus in n.1 et 2, scienter et libere posuerint, ad sacramenta admitti possint.

R. Negative, secundum ordinaria principia de sacramentis denegandis iis, Qui non sunt dispositi


Q.4 Utrum Christifideles, Qui proletaristarum doctrinam materialisticam et anti Christianam profitentur, et in primis, Qui eam defendunt vel propagant, ipso facto, tamquan apostatae a fide catholica, incurrant in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam.

R. Affirmative
-

Translation to the Vernacular

Spoiler :

DECREE AGAINST PROLETARIANISM

-

Q1: By chance is it licit to give name or to make favors to proletarian parties?


Negative: Proletaranism is materialistic and anti-christian; The leaders of the proletarians, although they undertake to sometimes not attack religion, they still through doctrine or action, to God and true religion, and to the Church of Christ often show themselves to be hostile.


Q2: By chance is it licit to publish, promulgate or read books, journals or leaflets which defend the action or the proletarian doctrine, or to write for them?

R: Negative: It is prohibited by law


Q3: Can Christians who perform the acts mentioned on n.1 and 2 be admitted to the sacraments

R: Negative: According to ordinary principles, the sacraments are to be denied to those who are not properly disposed.


Q4: If Christians declare openly the materialist and antichristian doctrine of the proletarians, and, mainly, if they defend it or promulgate it, “ipso facto”, do they incur in excommunication ("speciali modo") reserved to the Apostolic See?

R: Affirmative
 
From: The German Economic League
To: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


While we still don't readily appreciate the political turn-around you've gone through in about a years time, we have little choice but to accept it, and hope that Anglo-German relations continue to better themselves despite some questionable wheeling and dealing during and after the Great War. We also hope that, should the time come, that Britain does not shy away from aiding nations, and making condemnations against the Russian horde.

OOC:

@Jehoshua; You amaze me man. Really great stuff.
 
OOC: Its nothing really extraordinary.
 
OOC: In my entire life, I have known maybe four people who know any latin. Not one of them is anything close to good at it. You can write in fluent Latin. That is seriously impressive. :)
 
Due to theatre-related crunch time and a general feeling of being at a loss at what to do I am Lurking.
 
DECREE AGAINST PROLETARIANISM

-

Q1: By chance is it licit to give name or to make favors to proletarian parties?

Negative: Proletaranism is materialistic and anti-christian; The leaders of the proletarians, although they undertake to sometimes not attack religion, they still through doctrine or action, to God and true religion, and to the Church of Christ often show themselves to be hostile.

That makes no sense...where is your reasoning?
 
Mickzter97 said:
That makes no sense...where is your reasoning?

OOC: it's called rhetoric, chap.
 
Firstly in all official ecclesiastical decrees the first language is latin. Ergo the latin is the official text of reference. As to the translation.

-

"To give name to" in this context basically means to distinguish something, or give a good reputation too something. "To make favours", is to give ones patronage and support to something, or to assist that something. These kinds of turns of phrases are common in latin and here they are directly translated.

In common speech it could perhaps be rendered "Is it licit to support or assist Proletarian parties".

The answer of course is negative for the reasons described, indeed these reasons namely that proletarians "although they undertake to sometimes not attack religion, they still through doctrine and action --- often show themselves to be hostile" is self evident particularly in the works of recent proletarian authors (refer to update, cultural section) and the actions of proletarian states (the actions), and in regards to their relativistic and dangerous ideology which has already been challenged in several speeches, which you may wish to study further (ergo their doctrinal hostility and error)
 
Back
Top Bottom