- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 204
- Points
- 203
INTRODUCTION AND AUTHORSHIP
A word on the author: our method is to systemize how things occur, falsify how they don't, and form for fellow essayists more nuanced concepts of policy. Theoretical discourse is often emotionally-charged—that vice is avoided in this work. This is academic in nature; the author, however, does take a contrarian approach based on the logical steps reviewed, and consequently treats past works with scrutiny, especially any of his own; whether Jacobinism, Jingoism, or Neobulwarkism, extremist—later defined as reactionary—ideologies are formally disavowed on the basis formulated later in the article.
ON WHAT DEFINES THE STATE
Every state has a country, but not every country a state. Ideological discourse drives political reality; an ideology seeks to change something about the state; typically, its governance. A state forms to protect a polity's interests—typically people and property. A state is the overarching nature of a polity, and is thus above, and defines, government. Yet government is not strictly beholden to a state: in fact, the actors who drive the government often posit their own ideologies to shift the whole in a direction favorable to them. Typically, this occurs slowly, steadily, and with little relative risk to the state, but drastic changes have occurred, though they are representative of something occurring at the stately level—often a shift in which political entity holds the core of a state. Usually, when states do take dramatic turns, it is because government has resisted that a new power has steadily absorbed more and more of the state, and that power mustered the authority to enforce a change on government. When states and governments disagree, it is likely the work of anti-statist reactionary ideologies, which boil down to the interpretation that not only do governments not function at the behest of its core, but that they can change the core.
For every government that rests somewhere between two corners on the spectrum, there is a corner opposite to it. In Regalia, interchangeably at times feudally monarchic or monarchically feudal, the opposite corner is anarchy. Anarchic ideologies, such as Neobulwarkism or Jacobinism, will never surface beneficially in the polity for this reason: they propose an opposite shift so drastic it would require the state to be thrown into the hands of an entirely new entity (a philosophy later described as anti-statism). In Daenshore, this happened exactly as we write it, only that the plantation magnates which owned the core Were steadily absorbed by the House Anahera, whose interests became more autocratic, and whose reforms shifted the government and state drastically toward regional autocracy. When he overstretched and fell, statehood fell out of the hands of the planters and into utter disarray. Today, Daenshore is undecided, enchained by gridlock, because three vying powers, the planters, the urban governors, and the underground, have yet to win their battle for the core of Daenshore.
IDEOLOGY AND THE STATE
As observed, ideologies are not a constant and unmoving thing. All ideologies exist conditionally. This is corroborated by regionalist doctrine, authored by Lysimachus and raised (to a part) by Prince Cedromar's opinionata on divisiveness: in Ithania, conservatism may seem absurdly liberal by Calemberger standards, whereas the Calemberger norm, to gain any ground in Ithania, would be laughably reformist to Ithanians. For this reason we do away with the label 'progressive'—all ideologies think they are progressing the state of Mankind—and replace it with the more useful term reformist. Additionally, we open a new category already described, the reactionaries; reactionary ideology takes institution A as held by conservatives to be the gold-standard, but criticized by reformists as needing advancement, and produces an opposite proposal on institution A to the one being posited by the reformists. Though they propose reform, it is anachronistic; their ideology, then, exists in contradiction to the conditions of the state. This is painted clearly in a later analogy, involving the fall of the Senate and the Pessimism which preceded it. Their proposals cannot be realized without some change upon the state first being realized—and this is wherein the danger lies.
States themselves cannot be tinkered with—their movements occur as an unseen power balance shifts in their polity—but governments are what healthy ideologies seek to direct. There are two approaches for a government; to accurately represent the mandate of the present state (statism) or to interpret conditions as needing a different direction as guided by an individual's ideology (non-statism). Non-statists do not, by default, wish to change the nature of the state—a proposal which would destabilize the polity—but instead view government in a different light than do statists; government cooperates with the state to a mutual aim, rather than working underneath and for it, and therefore government's interpretation or individual mandate is valid. But, to elaborate any further, we must delve into history.
Regalia is foundationally aristocratic. The Empire was formed as a joint compromise between the Five Families, each vast magnate vied for greater influence. This set the precedent that the state, the right to issue government and the source of power, was in the feudal magnates' hands, and the Ivraes, the Emperors, were the government itself—closer in theory to what exists in Ithania today. Yet in the centuries of conquest and development, government fluidly changed. The Kade chancellery served to loyally empower the Emperors, and Allamaria I co opted the military into the imperial fold from what existed before—entirely provincially-dominated levies. What was happening, slowly, was that the Emperors were co opting greater powers from the magnates; Regalia was shifting toward a firmer autocracy. Reactionaries formed demands in the Senate which produced gridlock, and the Pessimism occurred, our picture-perfect embodiment of the instability and insolvency which arises when a core, which by this point resided with the Emperors (and may well have fully shifted during the Purple Bleeding) is not in agreement with its government (the aristocracy and the Senate). A political conflict emerged. The holder of the core, the imperialists, won.
DIVISIVENESS, OR ANTI-STATISM
We have constructed a framework which is far more useful for observing states, political changes and ideological discourse. For what it is worth, I have written much with the express purpose of dispelling moralistic interpretations made by 'degradationists' that believe a decline in piety can harm a state (take that infidel states triumph at times where moral ones do not). What Abelhard Latimer observes in his piece on secularity is not moral decline as he believes, but local governments shifting fluidly as they always have.
Prince Cedromar writes that there is immense risk in what he defines as divisiveness, the climate wherein ideologies are at one another's throats. I assert that this is not what it seems; disputes between conservatives and reformists in a healthy government should not provoke significant risk to the state. Positive ideologies clash for governmental policy as allowed by the state; reactionaries that seek to drastically shift the core of a state are anti-statist.
This raises an interesting question. Imperialists have formed a bloc throughout much of Regalian history opining for greater stately powers for the Emperor. Today, imperial culture is the latest product of their exploits; through assimilation, commercial integration and cultural exchange, the gap between localities and the national level is being bridged together, allowing the state to influence not only national government, but regional and local ones, setting an Empire-wide mandate. For statists, this is necessary and inevitable; the Emperor, the core of Regalia, sets the mandate, and the government, nationally, regionally, and locally, ought to uphold His mandate, and the condition of the Empire is becoming shared. Non-statists will struggle, contrarily, to view imperialization as anything innately political, because even when the state's conditions are shared across all sections of society, government may still follow a separate interpretation of His mandate. But the question remains, how do we view this? How can we respond well to these changes, as the autonomy and conditions of the highest state spreads across the Empire, diminishing regionalism and conditional ideologies, bridging the imperial gap?
THE SOLUTION, DISCUSSED
In the primary source used here, the princely opinionata raises two hypotheticals when lambasting divisiveness; regionalism or imperialism. Either the mandate is set by the Emperor, or by the regions beneath him. The state of the polity has been in the hands of the Emperor for some time, but as factors of the imperial state continue to affect regional conditions, imperialization diminishing cultural dissonance; commercial integration diminishing autonomous economic spheres; and intentionally fostered ties of marriage, alliance, or military preparedness strengthening the imperial core's hold over regional ones, regions will have to come to grips with a more centralized Empire wherein the Emperor's mandate is unavoidably felt in every level of government. For cultures whose values include liberty and autonomy, this may be frightening enough to spark reactionary ideologies, as, I would posit, has been seen in Daenshore for some time under the Jacobinist umbrella. Yet these are fundamentally anachronistic views of their state—these changes reflect inevitable flows of power, and, given the scope of imperial history, imperialization will continue.
Imperialization, or assimilation, is a natural interest of the Emperor and statists. Given the Emperor's superiority in the state, it is an anomaly that regional governments should not reflect His authority more accurately. The notion that cultures lose out by adapting to imperial sovereignty is, at its root, fundamentally anti-statist. History provides a clear trajectory for the nature of Regalia's government on the spectrum framework; regions have become increasingly tied to Regalia as a centrality, which has arbitrated local disputes, worked to cease trivial competition between Ailor states, and brought a moderate, guiding stately body to Ailordom, a unique facet of racial politics only comparable to the Altalar's Alt-Allorn. If Regalia is the core, the beating heart of the Empire, and that core is embodied by the Emperor Himself, then regionalism, nationalism, and feudalism must make way, or harm the continuity of Man's project. Government is unchanged: from the Hivres of Ithania to the planters of Daenshore, these systems are largely materially left untouched by the transition. What must be reflected is that the imperial mandate—His culture, faith, His views and governmental direction, His decisions on neighbors, His counsel on local politics—all must be adhered to on the political level, and for political purposes.
Government, in a healthy system, recognizes rationally where the state's core resides, and does not deviate from it, and neither should the citizens or actors of a polity when acting politically. In order for the Regalian state to truly 'progress', or rather, function more efficiently, the Emperor mustn't be burdened with concerns of imperialization, power disputes and juggling regionalisms or political imbalance. As of now, His work seems to be in large part 'ensuring that His word is followed'—but we, as imperialists, must guarantee that it is, and that he is instead able to hone in on setting the political mandate, on giving his word, undistracted. This is how imperialization should be viewed. The solution to division, the answer raised by our framework, the fruit of our review of history, ideology, and everything in between, is an inherent statism which accurately represents the core's interests, which is imperial. Friction between the state and government produces instability—strict deviations from the government can even threaten the polity's wellbeing. Then as now, this can be called Imperialism; an advocacy for greater imperial authority, unity, and for the Emperor's divine will to be felt in every aspect of policy.
Signed,
Alesander Rochefort
Last edited:
