I've got another mass movement that's going to debut in The King in Yellow the day after tomorrow! Here's the flag, though I'll leave the details a surprise! Credit to EBR for the stars.

aflag2-png.751975
 
Last edited:
I've got another mass movement that's going to debut in The King in Yellow the day after tomorrow! Here's the flag, though I'll leave the details a surprise! Credit to EBR for the stars.

aflag2-png.751975
This is the flag of the World State movement but the quoted update also lays out Nehruism
View attachment 752889
-Though he had patiently declined the position of World Teacher in the 1920s, Jiddu Krishnamurti remained a valued spiritual and political leader in India until his death in the 1980s. Though only loosely affiliated with Theosophy after his turn toward political activism he insisted on including the Theosophy symbol in the new nation's flag as a testament to the religious tolerance it had been created to symbolize and which he now sought to make a permanent feature of the Union's government.

The Second Great Revolt was the last in a series of strains in Alliance-Pact relations dating back a decade or more, with the end of the India Crisis formally heralding the Entente-American split, the end of the Strange Aeon, and the beginning of the Age of Fear. An odd feature of the Strange Aeon was that although the weaponry tended to be more advanced (or at least more gruesome) there were hardly any brushes with disaster that theoretically could have ended with the mushroom cloud— nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis or even the Korean War. Although there were plenty of very long and heavily guarded borders between the blocs and espionage was a constant concern historians tend to peg this lack of potential flashpoint events to a fluke of political geography, with each major faction either, like the Comintern, concentrated among itself or, like the other two, overwhelmingly dominant in an area with only token allies or neutrals around. Hence the Age of Fear. If the only thing stopping war was the fact that Alliance members in Asia and the Americas and Pact ones in Africa were technically aligned with their neighboring alliance structure what would the future hold in a crosshatched world of all against all? That's not for me to get into today.

The India Crisis (as it was known in the FBU) and the Bush Wars that had preceded it would have tectonic effects on the nature of the Dominion system and the Franco-British Union as a whole. There had already been a trend favoring the gradual independence of the most loyal* colonies but the Crisis had demonstrated the futility of trying to hold a restive colony of nonwhites absent good faith political autonomy, with Labour leader J.G. Ballard frequently going on long tirades about the banal and everyday horrors maintaining the colonial system was forcing on the Union even while the Africans were left to face the most visceral consequences. This bitter pill was much easier to swallow by the 70s because the administration of the colonies had by that point transitioned entirely to a loyalist native elite who stood to lose everything if their nations ever left the AfD. Guyana and Oceania had set a precedent for combining British and French colonial possessions, leading to the creation of a variety of newly independent Dominions loyal to the crown if not (de jure) subject to the Union, with the Union proper, not the component states, retaining strategically valuable exclaves as integral territory.

But what of India itself? While the ascension of Lucien I as King-Emperor in 1975 had kicked off an escalating cycle of unrest, the Second Great Revolt proper is usually dated to 1978, the year of the general strike and the high point of the mass mobilization that characterized the India Crisis. The FBU had signalled its unwillingness to stay in India any longer in the wake of the brutal slog of the Congo Crisis and the Bush Wars that had seen the Entente Armed Services deployed in combat essentially continuously since the mid-fifties and the Indian National Congress was able to declare a provisional government within the year. Nehru had not lived to see it but Krishnamurti had stewarded the independence movement ably in his absence, even commissioning a provisional constitution derived from Nehru's notes and theories before the India Crisis even began. With the discrediting of the Moderate and Irredentist factions several years before the Maximalists were firmly in control of the Congress and, with the Confederation government having successfully driven every possible other bastion of popular legitimacy to extinction, the Congress was firmly in control of the new state.

Nehruism drew from a wide variety of sources in a bid to create a third-way position hybridizing what he had seen as the benefits of both Fascism and Marxist-Trigonism and adapting the resulting amalgam to the Indian historical experience and cultural landscape. Fascism provided an excellent model for the fostering of cultural expression, with each state under the new system allocated funds to spend on the development of local styles of architecture and the arts, and also provided an excellent fiscal policy that accommodated the mixed economy of nationalized resources and private businesses the Maximalists favored. Though Vorticism was left at the door, Nehru also admired the Marxist-Trigonist policies of the Free Economy and Councilism, viewing the former as an effective way to improve the state of the economy through fiscal policy and the latter as the best method to ensure democratic accountability from the social base. Though a far lesser factor, all things considered, the state of Rational Anarchism in the Americas and Japan seems to have informed the Union's policy toward individual citizens, with a wide variety of personal restrictions abolished outright. This was seen as an essential step, with the overwhelming majority of citizens regarding the caste system those restrictions had enforced as an anachronism only retained for the privilege of elites who had done so well under Company and Confederation rule.

Once the Congress was in power these dynamics began to alter the nature of the party itself, transforming what was on paper merely the overwhelmingly dominant party in a theoretical multiparty system into a multiparty system in miniature. While American parties were strong things with subordinate labor unions that competed with one another over policy and the Comintern favored a decentralized ecosystem of language-based parties intentionally kept weak, equal to the labor unions and united around a central guiding policy**, the Congress would embrace a policy of fractionalism, with the different languages within the party empowered as separate party branches but with members caucusing across those lines and setting the party's policies through internal democracy.

Following the formation of the Indian Union the new government would stamp down on the violent but sporadic reprisals that had broken out in the wake of the Revolt, with Krishnamurti pushing for a general amnesty (barring cases of inciting or abbetting gender and ethnoreligious violence or politicide) from his position as an elder statesman within the Congress. While a majority of the former Confederation officials would take the offer, the elite classes were far more opposed to a government the saw poised to strip them of hereditary privileges and tax the living hell out of them, with the resulting Indian diaspora settling throughout the FBU and the Dominions. This "exile" community has historically provided the governments of the Union and the Dominions with some of their most stable and active support, a trend which continues into the modern day.

While the Union was absorbing or dismantling those organs of the Confederation government that helped or hindered the new state the time finally came to deal with the East India. In a widely heralded speech delivered across the nation's airwaves usually called "The Emergency" Premier Indira Gandhi made the forceful case that the Company had hindered and exploited the subcontinent since its arrival and would not be allowed to continue any further, citing the expulsion of the China branch in the Wushen Rebellion by name. As such she had ensured that although Company officials had been subject to the amnesty the Company's liquid assets had been seized pending review and its physical ones had been cordoned off or impounded. She announced on air that these assets would be nationalized or auctioned off to domestic concerns as appropriate and that no East India branch, affiliate or official would be permitted access to the nation's economy in any form. Now stripped of both its traditional bases of activity by a brutal 20th century those shattered elements of the Company that remained would be forced to consolidate in their last remaining stronghold in the Dominion of Ceylon.

1280px-King_of_Kandy.svg.png

-The Dominion of Ceylon had a government even more nakedly in thrall to the East India than the Confederation's had been, making it for all intents and purposes a Company special economic zone for most of its modern history. The rise of the particularly Randian Ceylon Renewal Front would see the nation renamed the Dominion of Kumari Kandam during the 80s but the Company remained secure as the power behind the ultranationalist and hypercapitalist throne.

With the passing of the Emergency the Union would undergo a diverse flowering of art, culture and societal movements, none more impactful on the global stage than the World State Movement that had been a major force pushing for independence for a generation. As in OTL Aldous Huxley had been longtime friends with Krishnamurti and had written a version of Brave New World around the same time. In this version the text ended with John the Savage accepting exile rather than embracing the downward spiral that lead to his suicide in the historical version. Living in the Confederation after the Second Clash, Huxley would publish a direct sequel in 1946. This second novel, Island, revolved around John's acclimation to the society to the island of Pala, made up of an exile community adopted into a preexisting culture influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism.

While the Palanese saw value in the World State's principles the community sought to employ them in a more fulfilling way, favoring personal spiritual development and individual choice over mind numbing Soma and fully artificial reproduction and striving to use technology for the benefit of man rather than man adapting himself to it. Island revolved around John gradually growing out of his emotional immaturity and coming to better understand himself and his place in the context of a broader society and the universe more generally, ending with the implication that he would attempt to become a World Controller to better export the more fulfilling life he had discovered in his exile. The duology would prove immensely influential, with the World State movement advocating for world peace and disarmament with the ideal of the eventual creation of a global international body marrying the reach of Brave New World's World State with the attitudes and approach fostered by the Palanese.

aflag2-png.751975

-The timeline's equivalent to the peace flag, the flag of the World State movement was inspired by the covers of Huxley's duology, with the globe inspired by Brave New World symbolizing the ideal of a universal international peacekeeping body and the myna bird representing the ideals of Island. The three stars represent the hope for peace between the Alliance, Comintern and Pact, and together the flag represented a world at peace among the stars.


*Read: "settler"

**"Vox Populi Vox Dei", the Comintern has such high levels of workplace and council democracy the actual positions of the bloc ebb and flow organically in response to public pressure with any factionalism, such as it is, the result of demographic differences that mirror society at large.
 
Also before the next act I'll be doing a series of updates laying out the major political parties of the power blocs in King in Yellow once I get set up at my new job. The Comintern handles it in a weird way but it helps that the US and Franco-British Union are so dominant in their respective blocs that their parties have ideologically-aligned affiliates (or even straight up cadet branches in the FBU's case). It'll give a bit of a picture of the world in 1980 before the real fun starts and it'll help lay out the spectrum within each of the timeline's major ideologies.
 
Cyber-anarchist-landian-NRx-agorist-proudhonian-Nietzscheanism (May all imaginable Gods have mercy upon the creator of this ideology) New
Ideology.PNG


Cyber-anarchist-landian-NRx-agorist-proudhonian-Nietzscheanism:

-Cooperatives begin forming a black market shadow economy outside of the government approved economy.

-Eventually the government collapses because it can no longer control society and the cooperatives take over.

-"He who does not work shall not eat." Only those who are capable of working for the cooperatives get food, while sickly, disabled, and elderly people are left to die.

-Some giant mega-cooperatives have complete control over de facto city-states. Most of these mega-cooperatives are ruled by elected Delegates who are given borderline tyrannical power over the city-state in exchange for consistently delivering bread and circuses to their workers.

-Sex and violence are glorified by society. Many workers begin fighting in duels to resolve interpersonal disputes.

-The mega-cooperatives begin to pursue technological progress without regard for ethics. Unethical human experimentation designed to facilitate transhumanism is conducted on "volunteers" who would otherwise be left to starve to death.
 
View attachment 753723

Cyber-anarchist-landian-NRx-agorist-proudhonian-Nietzscheanism:

-Cooperatives begin forming a black market shadow economy outside of the government approved economy.

-Eventually the government collapses because it can no longer control society and the cooperatives take over.

-"He who does not work shall not eat." Only those who are capable of working for the cooperatives get food, while sickly, disabled, and elderly people are left to die.

-Some giant mega-cooperatives have complete control over de facto city-states. Most of these mega-cooperatives are ruled by elected Delegates who are given borderline tyrannical power over the city-state in exchange for consistently delivering bread and circuses to their workers.

-Sex and violence are glorified by society. Many workers begin fighting in duels to resolve interpersonal disputes.

-The mega-cooperatives begin to pursue technological progress without regard for ethics. Unethical human experimentation designed to facilitate transhumanism is conducted on "volunteers" who would otherwise be left to starve to death.
NGL that actually sounds like an interesting ideology for some kind of future TL
 
Last edited:
So I was reading about the Bicameral Mentality Theory and it honestly surprises me it never became a serious ideology that much like Marxism interprets history according to their lenses

One that civilisation rose where humanity was sociologically forced to develope a concept of self, giving up its proto-schizophrenic state where they just followed "the voice of the gods"

I could see two variants arising from it:

-One social-darwinist branch stating that "inferior" social/ethnic groups failed to develope a sense of self or major civilisation due to their isolation, lack of social pressure or genetic predisposition to do so

-And another even more chaotic one following a anarcho-primitivist line of thought advocating for the restoration of humanity's "true state" through social engineering and language modification(ala Newspeak) in order to rebuild the bicameral state of mind from scratch

I could even see a totalitarian government taking bits of both where it's propaganda adopts the social-darwinist approach regarding the "undesired" while at same time stating that their mission is to restore the bicameral "natural humanity" that follows "the will of the gods" in the anprim fashion when in reality the government has no intention of giving up their consciousness thank you very much but fully intends on reducing their subjects to hallucinating obedient citizens who follow what their subconsciously(filled with national subliminary messages) and the gods(the government) tell them to do through institutional gaslighting and the aforementioned newspeak

Heck if they are extremist enough I could even see the government trying to brainwash itself like 1984, but unlike the Big Brother it fully buys into its own rhetoric of replacing the self with an autonomous subconsciousness

Think of it as like what Maoism is to Marxism-Lenism but to Shikaku-Mon's Synarchism instead
 
So I was reading about the Bicameral Mentality Theory and it honestly surprises me it never became a serious ideology that much like Marxism interprets history according to their lenses

One that civilisation rose where humanity was sociologically forced to develope a concept of self, giving up its proto-schizophrenic state where they just followed "the voice of the gods"

I could see two variants arising from it:

-One social-darwinist branch stating that "inferior" social/ethnic groups failed to develope a sense of self or major civilisation due to their isolation, lack of social pressure or genetic predisposition to do so

-And another even more chaotic one following a anarcho-primitivist line of thought advocating for the restoration of humanity's "true state" through social engineering and language modification(ala Newspeak) in order to rebuild the bicameral state of mind from scratch

I could even see a totalitarian government taking bits of both where it's propaganda adopts the social-darwinist approach regarding the "undesired" while at same time stating that their mission is to restore the bicameral "natural humanity" that follows "the will of the gods" in the anprim fashion when in reality the government has no intention of giving up their consciousness thank you very much but fully intends on reducing their subjects to hallucinating obedient citizens who follow what their subconsciously(filled with national subliminary messages) and the gods(the government) tell them to do through institutional gaslighting and the aforementioned newspeak

Heck if they are extremist enough I could even see the government trying to brainwash itself like 1984, but unlike the Big Brother it fully buys into its own rhetoric of replacing the self with an autonomous subconsciousness

Think of it as like what Maoism is to Marxism-Lenism but to Shikaku-Mon's Synarchism instead
Both those seem pretty plausible - I also see a third possible path, which I will tentatively call "Anarcho-Unicameralism", taking the line that humanity has failed to overcome the bicameral mentality and merely replaced the gods of the past with the barely-more-real governments of the present as the voice telling people what to do. Only once we fully develop a sense of self and cast off the shackles of the bicameral mentality will we be able to overcome the problems that face us...
 
Last edited:
Another ideology I thought about was inspired by this setting I came up with, serving as a kind of canonical system of government for the pan-asian nation South America became in it

I dub it "Parliamentary Absolutism" though in universe they would try to call it a prettier name like "Republican Monarchy" "Enlightened Imperial Government"

Essencially it is a parliamentary system where the monarch is nominally ceremonial with no powers, not even parliament dissolution, identical to the Westminster Model in every way...except for one little key difference

They can pick every single person in the government

So people still vote for candidates who usually get the mandate they were elected for because no one wants to contradict the people and give them reasons to become republican

But if the monarch wants they can go "Nah" and instead appoint someone else for the job and nobody can say no to that

Besides that, there's another trick up their sleeves to keep the system popular and make the people not question the ruler's ability to completely ignore their votes and appoint whoever they want

The monarch will take one day every month(or year? Depends on the schedule) and go in public..
Initially in front of a big crowd in the capital but after the invention of TV they go in live television
Where they read every single complaint submitted to them by the people themselves and in the next hours of the day address and talk about as many of them as they can, speaking about any and all plans they can conceive right then and there to address these issues and better the quality of life of the nation

Of course with so many complaints coming from almost every person and city there must be something to "filter" these complaints in order to not overwhelm the poor monarch

And that's where municipal and provincial federalism kicks in

The complaints are also read and "filtered" by every mayor, who then pass them to their governors who also reads and "filters" them before sending the rest to the monarch, all pf which have to speak to their subjects how they'll address these issues

So if one complaint didnt make to the Emperor/Queen it is not because they are ignoring you, its because either the mayor or governor didnt submit your fair and just cause to the ruler, how dare them!

So any anger building up in the system is targeted not at the always benevolent and paternalistic crown that genuinely is always speaking about everyone's issues and working on solving them but instead those darn local rulers that lost their right to rule instead of the Crown

Thus when it gets too much, the people simply kill off the local mayor or governor that they probably elected and the very kind ruling person appoints someone better to replaces them

"See the Emperor addressed all our problems and did their best tp help us, I SAW IT
They only didnt know we are suffering here in Townsville because that sick governor didnt submit our complaints! Lets kill him so the monarch can hear us!"

"Didnt you say you complained about the lack of representation in the city council? Where did that end?"

"The Queen would have addressed it, I mean she did that for Avocadopolis so she would've done it for us...if that idiotic mayor sent it to her as he was meant to!

You know, the one ~democratically elected~

But no worries he lost the mandate of Heaven so we'll off him and she'll appoint a better one"

Thus the perfect illusion of popular participation and democratic rule is created when the country is de facto under the absolute and utterly complete control of a single person who, unfortunately for them, actually has to deal with every single problem the nation is facing and talk about it live!

Combo that with a rather efficient succession system where rather than the Crown going to the first child with a penis it goes to whatever kid out a couple dozen the ruler had during their "priv time" they picked as the best successor(Han Dynasty style)
Or, should the monarch die before electing a desired heir publicly, the parliament made up of people that de jure were elected but de facto were appointed by the monarch themselves chooses the best suited successor(British Style)
Thus avoiding crazy or obviously incompetent rulers as well as highly damaging civil wars over different heritage claims to the throne

That means such a highly centralized if not super authoritarian system could potentially remain popular forever even among liberal democracies and kill the desire for popular representation on the bud, because so long it works as intended(and Im aware no system does so forever) the population would believe they are already well represented and the ruler has their interests in mind more so than any elected representative

"The Queen personally sent a letter to my employer telling him to give us fair wages
And you want us to rebel to put a Republic???
And for what, one of those corporate bastards to get elected and not give a fuck about us?
Im sure the executioner will love to hear your complaints, I mean the Queen would've heard it but you want to overthrow her instead! Ungrateful bastard"

Edit:

My reasoning was that such a nation if it existed would have been born in conditions similar to Brazil's - aka a monarchy wanting to retain it's powers while being heavily influenced by liberal constitucionalism

The OTL solution for that by Pedro I was to create a representative government but with a "Fourth Power" held by the monarch where he could dissolve the parliament if things got out of hand, but besides that the brazilian monarch also could appoint the prime minister, usually following the electoral results

ITTL there's no Pedro I to do that, so I scrapped the Dissolution Power, which would be redundant anyway here as I kept the notion of it keeping the appearance of a liberal democracy where the monarch appoints the Premier but with that expanded now to cover the entire government being appointed by them as this nations looks up to the models of Imperial China & Korea instead of european kingdoms due to their heritage

Then I figured the monarch would need some kind of stunt to remain popular and I remembered how Qin Shi Huang had hundreds of bamboo scrolls all around his place, being obsessed with handling every single issue that was happening

So I imagined the monarch of TTL might have done something similar in public as a way of getting PR, with it slowly evolving into a integral part of the system that is vital for it's stability
 
Last edited:
From this my thread. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-separatism-worked-out.530141/#post-23296198

The Biafran and Katangan separatist wars and their failures came to define how the international community treated separatism and the failure of West Papuan separatism came to influence how the UN chatter on self-determination was views as in practice.

If these Separatist wars and movements ended with success how would the world deal with Separatism?.

All these states also saw support from former colonial powers which either had control of the region (Belgium for Katanga, Netherlands for West Papua) or had historic and current designs for the region (France for Biafra) as well as support and opposition from other post colonial states (Biafria had some of France's vassals support like Ivory Coast and Gabon which it also used to send some discrete aid and support from other more independent African states like Tanzania and support from the white settler colonial states to break up the most populous black state) what exactly will be the relationship between these states and the West under these conditions of both some Western and Unaligned movement support?.

Like the Biafrans described French support as too little to be descisive, if they still manage to win(and if they manage to do so with it's Vassal republic of Edo) would they be really so obligated to support France? Same with Katanga and Belgium/France, tho West Papua's success independence would be more dependant on the Dutch, would they really not just treat it like how say Chad treats it's independence from Chad?.

And what ideological movements would this support, Biafra again as an example saw huge humanitarian support from Churches in form of Joint Church Aid. Would this validate Christian movements like liberation theology to prominence in the decolonized world? Or would the ideology of the Ahiara Declaration, an document that constructed an idea of a Black Africa in opposition to Communist bloc, Muslim world and the West and with intellectuals that created it proposing the earliest forms of communualism be among the main ideas like Mobutu's Authenticalism and that given the influence that Nigerians from the Biafran region have had OTL, possibly a more successful ideology one at that.

And that's just Biafra, what changes in ideology could come out of an independent Katanga and West Papua. Katanga had a White management class. Would under the Belgian influence they not be immediately expelled and allow for a more gradual transition and successful transition like Botswana did or would that class work to keep their position and privileges and work as a Catel to not let such a transition occur. Alternatively, would these state instead be as opposed to Western influence and its heritage and be more like Uganda and expel non-native born experts to have their roles filled in by cronies?.

What of West Papua. One interesting thing about that is that an argument was and is still being made that Indonesia's rule over it should be seen as colonial, just colonial Austronesians colonizing over Melanesians.

The Idea of non-European colonizers in the period of the Scramble for Africa and After could be made with more grounds and not only made but be grounds for secession.

Like Ethiopian rule over Oromo and Somali could now be argued against on grounds of colonization, so could integration of the middle belt region of Nigeria into Nigeria proper on grounds that the Hausa-Fulani were basically used as sub-colonizers by the British to conquer and hold the middle belt.

Anyways, what do you think about the calculus of the spread of Ideology, the Ahiara Declaration seems like something with similarities to later ideologies coming out of the 3rd world to reject capitalism and Communism for their own geo-political movement like Mobutu's Authenticalism and Hinduvata(this because of its opposition to the Islamic world as well). Except it was more universalist, specifically to Black Africa and less particularist(compared to Authenticalism). To what extent could it actually be a wide spread ideology for the 3rd world, and would the alliance with Christianity in the Ideology that would certainly be further bolstered by the humanitarian efforts of Joint Church aid be more of a hindrance than support?.

There's this book, Colonialism by Proxy by Moses E Ochonu that makes the argument that Hausa were used as sub-colonizers in the middle belt region of Nigeria. I haven't completely gone through it but he casually references that other places experienced the same, so an ideology early on that says non-Europeans can be colonizers to bordering regions, which would be legitimized by the independence of West Papua would also mean that such regions like Middle-Belt Nigeria would see their own runs at Separatism.

This would obviously leak into native African state's Conquests being seen as colonial by some like Ghana, largely built around the Asante Empire may now become unstable, Ethiopia is certainly there and Morocco's whole thing in the Western Sahara can be cast as colonial resulting in stronger intervention by the West.

This could straight up be a new faction among the 3rd world/unaligned states which itself would have to align, most likely to the West. Tho USA would see the obvious implications of the larger 3rd world/unaligned community then swinging to the Soviets and leave them to sink.
Instead of Mobutu's Authenticalism, It's Biafran Ahiara Declaration that comes out as a 3rd world anti-west, anti-commie and in this case, also anti-arab world Ideology.

And since Biafra would be more stable and more successful than the DRC, it would be an Ideology that'll also spread, probably to India and West Papua, Timor Leste, South Sudan, maybe even Ethiopia and Tanzania (Tanzania did support Biafra) as those too have similar enough conditions to Biafra as Christian majorty(with the exception of India) 3rd world countries with overbearing or hostile Muslim neighbors.
 
Top