The True Divided Nation - An Alternate North America

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

Any questions, suggestions, and reactions?

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

President Ro Khanna's State of the Union address. (NOTE: Ignore the unedited part)

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[Whiteshore]

Queen Anne-Marije I of Insulindia (l) and Kwon Ji-Yong (r)

BBC.Com
"The Royal Wedding of the Century?"
February 16, 2019
​

Batavia, Insulindia-In Batavia's Sion Church, Queen Anne-Marije I of Insulindia married Japanese pop singer, actor, and songwriter Kwon Ji-Yong in an relatively simple ceremony in Insulindia's capital city after a similar civil ceremony. While the ceremony was not the elaborate show of display that royal weddings in the United Kingdom, the Japanese Empire, the Indian Empire, the "two Chinas", or East Germany, the wedding could still be considered the "royal wedding of the 21st Century".

This is so as Queen Anne-Marije I of Insulindia, after a few years of being engaged with the Japanese (although ethnically Korean) pop star, married him in what has been one of the most fascinating celebrity events of the past few years. This is so as the monarchs of Insulindia have been exiled from the Netherlands in the Syndicalist Revolution which led to the overthrow of the Dutch Monarchy in the 1920s. Over the past few decades, Insulindia has gradually grown more democratic and multi-ethnic, developing into a thriving constitutional monarchy, albeit one where there are still some issues regarding how most wealthy people are either the descendants of Dutch colonial settlers or "Indos" (mixed-race people) even as a thriving native middle class has arisen with the last four Prime Ministers of Insulindia (including the current one, Prabowo Subiato) all being "natives".

With the marriage of the monarch of Insulindia to one of Asia's most popular celebrities, the Kingdom of Insulindia, which had dropped all claims to the "homeland" in 2002 as part of detente between the liberal democratic and socialist blocs stands at a crossroads as it, like the Indian Empire, is part both of the Imperial Union and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Is Insulindia's future with the IU, the GEACPS, or both?

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

fio.re.org/themes/total_sys/obj/EXPL.htm

Free Internet Organisation (FIO)


Objectivism
Lilac - This form of totalitarianism is not strictly associated with a colour, but many nations which are under the yoke of Objectivism are often depicted as lilac on world maps and atlasses, and thus, many got to associate Lilac with Objectivism.

What is Objectivism?

Objectivism is the ideology descended from the Robespierre-led "Reign of Terror" in 1794 France. The highest institution of government in France from 1794 to 1871 was called the Directorate for Public Welfare. This is the reason why Objectivist regimes universally have the word "Directorate" in their name and, often, the Objectivist bloc is collectively referred to as "Directorates" or "the Directorates".

Which countries are Objectivist?

There are only relatively few countries which are Objectivist, but they are notable. These countries' elites are extremely prosperous, and Research and Development takes place to a great extent.
There are:
- South Vietnam (officially, this is a French government-in-exile since 1874 and calls itself "Directorate of Freedom and Security")
- Cambodia (Khmer Directorate)
- Myanmar Directorate
- Swahili Directorate
- Union of Red Sea Directorates
- Tawantinsuyu Directorate
- Guarani Directorate
- Ayiti Directorate

​

Why is the ideology called "Objectivism"?

"Objectivism" is not a self-designation, but a foreign designation. And it refers to no particular concept or tenet of the ideology. Instead, "Objectivism" has caught on because Directorates claim to make every decision on an objective basis, solely based on facts with emotions, but also propaganda and personal interests put aside as far as possible.

This sounds useful and progressive! Why is Objectivism rated as totalitarian?

The definition of "objectiveness" is extremely skewed in the Directorate nations, skewed so that something is "objective" if and only if it was determined by the Free Market. Objectivism is basically the epitomy of capitalism. While nothing is to be said against capitalism - it is a harbinger of freedom and democracy in most cases - Objectivism has perverted liberal capitalism into totalitarianism. Capitalism is practised in an Objectivist state to such an extent that many areas under state control in most democracies are privately controlled in Objectivist nations.
Only the military is controlled by the state - and serves as a police force, too. However, not every crime is prosecuted by this military/police combination. Prosecution only takes place when the deed "endangers national security". And there, the perversion begins. Theft is, as most people would agree, not a threat to national security. However, and this is where disagreements just start, a peaceful assembly of workers demanding better working conditions; indeed, a peaceful assembly of anyone demanding their living conditions improve, is seen as such a threat.
Anything that is not seen as a threat to national security is resolved privately, "between citizens". However, these "citizens" are very often unequal.

Inequality exists in democracies, too? Why is this a sign of totalitarianism?

Basically, this is correct. Every nation has some degree of inequality. However, the degree of inequality is, firstly, much higher in Objectivist nations. An extremely wealthy - some would say: filthy rich - elite dominates the extremely poor vast majority of the population.
Secondly, a social security net does simply not exist in Directorates. If you lose your job, fall severely ill, your employer goes bankrupt, or you face any other type of crisis in life, you can - and mostly will(!) - end up starving. Despite starvation as a major issue having been elminated by 2013 worldwide. The only option you have in a Directorate is hoping that some altruist or a charitable organisation supports you.
And thirdly, this extreme degree of inequality has legal consequences. While in our liberal democracy, such inequality could - for example - mean that the wealthier party in a legal dispute can afford a better-qualified lawyer, in a Directorate, no state-provided legal aid exists. In a dispute, this would mean that the poorer party has to fight for itself.
But it can turn out much worse: As there is no health insurance, absolutely none of it, you will have to pay any health-related costs on your own. In many cases of more severe illnesses, this means financial ruin. But it can also mean certain death, for example if you cannot afford an ambulance in a medical emergency and do not find a charity to support you in time.
The same is true for a fire brigade: If your house is on fire in a liberal democracy like ours, the state is legally obliged to pay for the operation. However, in a Directorate, this is not the case! This means: If your house is on fire in a Directorate, you must pay yourself. And this can even, in some cases, mean paying in advance - conditions of such a contract, after all, are negotiated "on the free market". If you cannot pay, the fire will not be extinguished.
Such cases have, at least a few times, caused worldwide outrage. Most people will remember the case of the Morogoro highrise collapse where 2853 people died

The rubble of the infamous Morogoro highrise

This has even worse consequences for things that have no natural advocates, like the environment. Environmental protection or combatting climate change are things that are basically non-existent in Directorates. The highest level of "environmental protection" that is common in a Directorate is that a few members of the wealthy elite start a charitable effort, for example to bring up calves of elephant mothers killed for their ivory. But a nationally organised effort to protect the environment or something like that is unknown to Directorates.

What policies does an Objectivist nation have?

As described above, an Objectivist nation leaves nearly every decision to the "free market". But of course there are a few policies in such Objectivist nations. The main policy of these minarchist governments is to protect national security.
This is also the reason why the Directorates have some of the most formidable militaries in the world, at least for their nations' size: They constantly believe to be under threat of outside invasion - just like it was true for Robespierre's France in 1794. The same goes for fear of civil war or unrest - the latter enhanced by the success of the French Communards in 1874.
This also means that any large demonstrations, whether they are peaceful or not, are seen as threatening national security and thus most likely end up crushed by military force. The wealthy elite of course can hire mercenary forces to counter the official military of the Directorate - and such an act is not illegal either (it's the free market after all!) , but the masses can't.´

Are Objectivist nations inherently racist, sexist, or discriminatory?

Sometimes, you will hear the claim that South Vietnam (or, more rarely, the Swahili Directorate or the Union of Red Sea Directorates) is "white supremacist", "racist" and/or "has a Separate but Equal policy like the Kong Nation". This is not the case.
Heterosexual males of at least some European descent do form an overwhelming majority of the elites in such nations, but this is not due to inherent racism or sexism. An Objectivist state is led by those who have, by luck or skill - and many a time also by more sinister means - accumulated the most capital, i.e. by the wealthiest. There are no laws in Objectivist states which discriminate against any race, sex, age, sexual orientation.

What is up with the Cult of Reason in Objectivist states? It seems to be the only allowed religion?

The "Cult of Reason" was developed shortly after the French Revolution as a new religion of humanity, of Enlightenment, to replace Catholicism. However, Robespierre during his Reign of Terror in France (1794-1817) perverted both the Cult of Reason and the Cult of the Supreme Being into, basically, a personality cult around him as an "incarnation" of Reason. When Robespierre died in 1817, and a five-member Directorate was installed again (as was originally intended), the Cult of Reason could easily be repurposed as a Cult around the Directorate. Only a few elements of cult around progress, technology and - soon after - industrial achievements remained. These elements slightly increased, but became fused with the Directorate itself embodying progress, technology, reason, freedom etc. pp.
Whether this perverted Cult of Reason is the "only allowed religion" in a Directorate is difficult to say. One will not find a law in which the Cult of Reason is prescribed. However, an Objectivist state does really not care whether - in private and as far as is possible after working - you believe in God, Allah, or Shiva, or whether you practice Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion. As long as you do sufficiently revere the current Directorate on top of it (which mainly means: under no circumstances criticising it).

Are there any advantages of Objectivism?

Only if you want to get into business which is considered illegal in most nations. You can trade drugs of most kinds in Objectivist nations, for example, as well as found most kinds of adult industries.
Another advantage of an Objectivist nation could consist in non-existent work and environmental regulations. This is the reason why quite a lot of products, from the 1960s to the early 2010s, came from Objectivist nations and why relations were commonly good with even communist and syndicalist nations.
Another field in which Objectivist nations "triumph" are areas of medical (and rarely other) research which are considered unethical in other nations.

Should one travel to an Objectivist country?

There is active travel advice for every Objectivist country as at least longer stays in such nations can easily become exceedingly dangerous. If you do not know really well what to do and what not to do, you are liable to get into a situation where you are either accused of threatening national security - which carries draconian penalties up to and including the death penalty, and can also result in the military shooting to kill - or into a situation where you become a victim of the extremly ruthless version of the free market present in Objectivist countries. A third danger of Objectivist nations, which is very real, is that you could commit something that is legal in the Objectivist nation itself, but a crime in your home country.

A stay for a week or two, during a holiday, should nevertheless be safe in most cases.

However, mind that Objectivist countries have nearly no natural beauties left and mostly consist of agrobusiness-type monocultures, cities, streets, railway lines, and infrastructure.

A landscape akin to the Moon. This is the result of excessive mining in the Swahili Directorate - and many natural beauties have been destroyed for this. ​

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

bbc.co.uk/foreign/exp_stratocracy_militarism


Poltiics Explained:

What is the difference between militarism and stratocracy?
Or Why Egypt and Persia do not have the same system.


Yesterday, Persia saw another election day. Democratic and Syndicalist nations frequently see Persian elections as "relatively free and fair". However, when Turkey held elections last October, the verdict of international election observers and of most democratic and syndicalist governments - nearly universally - was "not free and fair". Only a few organisations rated the Turkish elections "partly free and fair".

Why is there such a difference? And what has this got to do with the difference between stratocracy and militarism (as the two forms of government are frequently called)?

Stratocratic nations in yellow, militarist nations in olive.
The Confederate States of America, the Republic of Saba, and the Volkstaat (South Africa) are somewhere between militarism and western democracy.
​

What do the two forms of government have in common?​

• The military plays a great role in society, and every citizen or at least every able-bodied man has to perform a long time of military service.
  
• Also, both militarism and stratocracy aim to be non-partisan. This makes stratocratic nations oft-chosen venues for difficult summits.
  
• The only people eligibile for the role of President (etc.) are higher military ranks.
  
• All militarist and stratocratic nations are socially conservative, economically rather social, and deeply religious. Even in the military, deep and devout religiosity is the norm.

What are the main differences?

• Militarism: Suffrage is only granted to ranks which are at least equivalent to a Commissioned Officer, some nations even require a rank equivalent to Brigadier General. Stratocracy: Suffrage is granted to every citizen, or at least to every citizen who has performed the compulsory military service.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

z.co (or: zarazobraz.pl)/950728756

@MathieuLoyalist:

GOAL! 1-0 for the Reds! Touré!

CoTam chat:

Mathieu: 1-0 for our Reds!
Sebastién: Wow! What a good shot by Touré
Mathieu: YEEEEES!

....
Mathieu: That wasn't offside!
Sebastién: NO! The referee is blue!
Mathieu: What's going on? Did he get a hint from Clermont-Ferrand?
.... seems to be in contact with Clermont-Ferrand!
Gaël: Yes! Running to the screen!
Sebastién: Yes!!!!! The Online Assistant!
Gaël: And... the screen! He makes the screen sign!
Mathieu: Finally, this OA has worked for once. That seemed to be a total failure!

GOAL!!!!!!!! 2-0 for the Reds! 2-0 for FP Angoulème! Jourdren!!!!!!!!

Gaël: What is this noise?
Mathieu: Look up! We must flee!
Sebastien: A PLANE!
This has become one of the most famous CoTam chats ever, as it took place immediately before the 1/13 terrorist attack on the Stade Loïc Piocelle, where the AMS Lille was behind 0-2 against the second-tier FP Angoulème in a match of the Coupe Proletarien. It was a match of the Round of 16.
In this attack, 42,047 people were killed and 6,440 could flee the site in time or were "only" injured, among them Gaël and Sebastien. The FFF awarded FP Angoulème the Coupe Proletarien in this season. ​

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

Any questions, comments, and FAQs?

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

NOTE: Ignore the right side of the webpage.

Spoiler: IMPORTANT NOTE:

Offically, I'm returning back sometimes to TTDN for news updates.

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[The British Empire]

 

[The British Empire]

 

[AstroRangerBeans]

 

[Ferd42]

 

[Tales Weaver]

Sunset high is a TV show that aired in NHK america from 2012 to 2019. an adaptation of Linda A. Cooney's novel series, it deals with the fictional sunset high in Beverly Hills, California. it is about Kristin Sullivan, who attends the school due to his father, a cardiologist from minnesota, moving to california with his family.