From TNOpediA
(Redirected from Ideology)

A political ideology is a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way individuals or groups think about politics, governance, and the organization of society. It often includes ideas about the best political system, economic policies, and social norms, guiding political behavior and policy-making.

In the Toolbox Theory update, every ideology got further subideologies to add depth to the political system. The name and the description of the ideology type shows up when hovering over the ideology icon in the country's politics or diplomacy view. Each character and political party is in one of the eleven ideology groups.

The Ideology Groups are: Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Liberal Conservatism, Conservatism, Paternalism, Despotism, Ultranationalism, Fascism and National Socialism.

Communism[edit | edit source]

Communism is a polarizing ideology, to say the least. As decried as it is praised, it can safely be said to have been, along with National Socialism, one of the defining ideologies of the 20th century so far. But what exactly is communism? Descended from the thought of Marx and Engels, and claiming the heritage of Lenin's revolution, its end goal is to establish a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership of the means of production and free distribution thereof according to one's needs. Its adherents are firm believers in the concept of class struggle, and aim to overthrow the bourgeoisie to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat - a society and government where the working class and the state are synonymous.

While some movements believe in electoralism, most strains of communism are fiercely revolutionary, and tirelessly advocate for the coming of said revolution through 'praxis', or direct action. In this regard, they consciously emulate Lenin and reject the prospect of reform or compromise. Of course, critics abound from all sides; from people claiming that human nature is inherently individualistic and selfish, to socialists decrying the means employed to bring about the proletarian dictatorship, communism has no shortage of detractors. And yet, 'Reds' of all stripes fight on, for they know that once the workers of the world unite, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

Bolshevism[edit | edit source]

Bolshevism is a term referring to former General Secretary and de facto leader of the Soviet Union Nikolai Bukharin's codification of his version of Leninism. While still calling for the violent overthrow of capitalism and a revolutionary dictatorship, it stresses freedom of socialist thought and political pluralism within the vanguard party itself, a pluralistic cultural sphere with minimal state interference, and an overall cautious, measured, and pedagogical attitude towards the construction of a communist society, holding that the people should learn to support socialism on their own terms and that coercive or militaristic methods to accomplish such will be both inhumane and counterproductive. In the Soviet Union itself, this led Bukharin and his faction of the Communist Party to controversially back continuation of the NEP and independent peasant agriculture, believing that forced collectivization as hardline figures advocated would be tantamount to "waging war on the population."

With the overthrow of Bukharin by Joseph Stalin in 1942, and the subsequent total disintegration of the Union over the next three years, Bolshevism stands in an unclear position. A cadre of fringe figures associated with Stalin, and the various remnant warlords claiming his legacy, blame its relative liberalism for the devastating defeat of the Union in the war and the apocalyptic consequences thereof, an argument widely rejected by historians of the subject. Most communist parties internationally still adhere to Bolshevism's principles, although with many different directions ranging from electoralist quasi-reformism to radical left-communist positions that still value pluralism.

Marxism-Leninism[edit | edit source]

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was one of many contenders to succeed Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union. While agreeing with Bukharin on the principle of "Socialism in One Country", he rejected the market-driven development of the New Economic Policy. Instead, he believed that the State should exercise total control over the economy to spur on rapid development of industrial and agricultural production. Private enterprise could never be trusted to develop a fully socialist state, and therefore all industry and agriculture ought to be collectivized and directed by Communist Party central planners to achieve the Union's goals. A key corollary to this policy is that, far from withering away after the revolution as the old Leninists believed, the State must indeed be strengthened a thousandfold in order to implement a full transition to a communist society. This was heresy to the likes of Bukharin, who would triumph over Stalin in the succession struggle.

Yet, perhaps surprisingly, Stalin gradually returned to prominence - first in the flesh, when he played a critical role in the last years of the USSR, and then with his ideas. His rump government may have proven no more successful than Bukharin's, but its state-oriented and exportable doctrines have allowed its grasp to spread around the world, even eclipsing Bukharinite Bolshevism in certain areas. Just as the Soviet Union fell to internal strife, its very ideology is now split in twain, and defined by mutual disdain.

Left Communism[edit | edit source]

Espousing what they claim to be the most purely Marxist doctrine, Left Communists reject nearly all major political developments that have occurred since the death of Lenin, and even some during his life. This isn't of course to say that they are entirely bound to doctrines as described in the writings of Marx and Engels, but they do seek to remain as close to its spirit as possible, even at the expense of effectiveness in the moment.

A rejection of parliamentary politics entirely, a defiance of vanguard party organization and its democratic pretenses, and a firm belief in the revolution as a historical inevitability characterize the Left Communism movement. This adherence to anti-populist attitudes and a focus on theory over praxis inspires no small degree of ridicule from their fellow leftists, but given how well history has treated them so far, Left Communists rarely feel threatened by these "opportunists" as they are often called.

Despite stereotypes and criticisms to that effect, Left Communists are not simply idle or lazy, awaiting for an "organic" revolution that will never come. But rather, their preparation involves planning rather than giving grand speeches, learning and studying rather than waving guns and standing on soapboxes. If knowing is half the battle, then the Left Communists have already won. It is, after all, simply a matter of time.

Stratocratic Communism[edit | edit source]

Stratocratic Communism arises from both circumstance and ideological drive. Despite loathing of conventional armies being common in the far-left, that sentiment typically dies out once a military apparatus is secured, and nothing has ever barred military men from adhering to that side of politics to begin with. Some men of that sort even indulge in the time-honored tradition of 'theorizing' - and where the ethos of their chosen profession meets Marxist theory, it fuses to create a new mode of thought that few other radical leftists endorse, for reasons which become quite apparent once its tenets are elaborated upon.

Foremost of those tenets is stated clearly in its name: the establishment of a revolutionary socialist government composed entirely of military officers and personnel. Detractors call this a cynical power-grab to hijack the revolution, little more than a revisionist junta. Those detractors (prior to their summary execution) would be met by the argument that the armed forces, being assembled from the conscripted proletariat, are the vanguard of the revolution by necessity. Moreover, the regime asserts that perpetual supremacy of the military is paramount to the ultimate triumph of socialism, for if the bourgeoisie cannot be defeated from within, it is the armed workers of the nation who must liberate their oppressed comrades by force.

Cries of "Revisionist!" aside, a regime of this type is still ideologically-driven and cannot simply be described as 'apolitical' or a 'junta'. It is committed to communist principles, chief among them absolute control of state, society, and economy by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Still, even by the standards of a revolutionary government, Stratocratic Communism is extremely hardline, tolerating no dissent and displaying shameless aggression. Civilian leadership has no place here; only the Revolutionary Army, composed of class-conscious worker-soldiers, can ensure the propagation of the world revolution and the destruction of bourgeois imperialism.

Mao Zedong Thought[edit | edit source]

While the Communists may have been defeated in the Second Sino-Japanese War, the ideas of one of their founders, Mao Zedong, have however not disappeared: hiding until the imperial threat falters, waiting for the right moment to strike.

Based on the writings Mao wrote during the Long March and his time in the Yan'an Base Area, Mao Zedong Thought borrows elements from a heavily rural-centric form of socialism, but to reduce it as a mere deviation upon it would be a mistake. Following in the footsteps of such figures as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Bukharin, Mao Zedong Thought relies on a doctrine of internationalism and anti-imperialism, but differs from traditional Bolshevism by placing an emphasis on the rural populace instead of the urban proletariat. In its fight against capitalist domination in countries where ruralism is still prevalent, it calls for revolutionary land reform and for the establishment of a system of New Democracy, adapted to conditions of the country, it also deems guerilla warfare as the best way to conduct the revolutionary struggle, under the form of a "protracted people's war".

Mao Zedong Thought is seen by its supporters as the natural continuation of Marxist thought, and thus as the next stage of Bolshevism: its fundamentally anti-imperialist principles have seen it adopted around the world, as oppressed peoples of all stripes begin take up arm against their oppressors. This new, revolutionary deviation of traditional Marxist thought has begun to make its mark throughout world history.

Amazonism[edit | edit source]

A split in the Brazilian Communist Party was all it took for a new revolutionary idea to form, and its birth led to a major shift in Latin American socialism. While many communist parties in the continent turn to electoralism, João Amazonas, the chief ideologue of the PCdoB, posits that communists must seek to violently overthrow the capitalist system in a drawn-out "people's war", involving rural guerilla warfare of the masses away from population centers.

Officially named "Marxism-Leninism-Amazonism", this movement has its roots in the ideological chaos established after the fall of the Soviet Union, being partially inspired by the failed Chinese revolutionary experience. Amazonism firmly rejects any association with capitalist powers, seeing it as a sign of betrayal of its anti-imperialist ideals, though the movements that follow this line should often collaborate with other revolutionary groups to topple the forces of imperialism. However, Amazonism is usually regarded with distrust by other factions, especially for its disposition towards economic autarky and isolationism in foreign policy.

Amazonas claims that only the vanguard party can awaken the masses and raise their consciousness towards revolutionary zeal, rejecting the Guevarist line of decentralized insurgency. While Amazonist groups focus on building rural guerrillas, they do not shy away from integrating themselves into the general labor movements and union structure, sometimes being at the head of many unions' bureaucracy. This bureaucratic aspect may represent a contradiction to Amazonas' fiercest zealots, but this dualism is integral in their fight against right-wing tyranny.

Arab Communism[edit | edit source]

Communism has a history in the Middle East that goes back to the days of the Russian Revolution, an ideology adopted and advanced by intelligentsia, workers and the disaffected of the region as early as 1917. The Middle East is an area of the world that has suffered under the heel of European imperialist capitalism in very direct ways starting in the early 20th century, beginning with the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious Entente after the First World War, and then being upheaved once again by the fascistic Axis after the Second. The attraction to communism in particular is informed by this recent history, and for many, communism forms the crux of resistance against imperialism itself.

Much like other regions of the world that have suffered under the thumb of empires, communism in the Middle East began to take on a life and distinction of its own as both grassroots movements and the Arabic intelligentsia put their own spin on traditionally Marxist messaging and ideology specific to their region of the world.

For many Arabic Communists, the simple changing of the mode of production was not enough. Arabic Communism not only needs to contend with foreign imperialism, but also with more conservative local leadership with a nationalist bent. To this end, the urban laborers and thinkers of the Middle East often demand change to the social fabric of the Arab World itself, with a particular emphasis on popular movement and social justice alongside political and economic change. The exact degree and character of these demanded reforms varies sharply from country to country, party to party, and even ideologue to ideologue, with Arab Communism encompassing a wide variety of movements and thoughts, from socialistic nationalists who simply want independence and socialism, to some who dream of a united pan-Arab nation to better resist outside interference and imperialist ambitions.

National Communism[edit | edit source]

When Karl Marx penned his fateful works, he imagined a global communist utopia, where workers all over the world would be free, and where the oppression of nationalism would be a distant memory, if that. This mantra was preached over and over again, organizations like the various Internationales grew and grew, and the left began to embrace the whole world in its mission. And it failed. Nikolai Bukharin championed the idea of "Socialism in One Country" when he led the Soviet Union, where a single socialist nation - the USSR - would focus on strengthening itself against reaction before liberating the world. And it failed.

But internationalism was never the sole destiny of communism. Another wing had followed it - National Communism, that had posed an answer to the national question - that communism was not the enemy of nationalism. That communism is true nationalism. It is the key to liberation from the twin devils of imperialism and capitalism, who seek to suck nations dry and leave them for dead. National Communists are as diverse as the different nations that host them, from Ukraine to Central Asia to Africa. Some support a loose union of communist states, others are more isolationist, yet they are all united by a common belief in national self-determination, communism, and anti-imperialism.

For the oppressed, for the enslaved, for all who suffer under the tyranny of imperialism and capitalism, National Communism is a beacon of hope in a dark, cruel world. And unlike other communist experiments, it may just succeed.

Workerism[edit | edit source]

Workerism, also known as Marxist Autonomism, is a term used to describe a network of interlinked movements and individuals emerging in the early 1960s in Italy. The original core of Workerism was a group of Marxist intellectuals who engaged in a critical revision of the interpretations of Marx's thought which had been en vogue among communists since Lenin's time. The key idea of workerism is that the traditional communist idea, preaching that the working class struggles are a reaction to capitalist development, is in fact backwards: capitalist development, according to workerists, is a reaction to the struggle of the exploited workers.

The working class is thus the "negative engine" of development, and accordingly, all revolutionary strategies must come from and be driven by the working class itself, with no interference from bourgeouis collaborationist unions and certainly not from exploitative vanguard parties. Indeed, the working class should reject any alliance with "progressive" or "empathetic" bourgeoisie. The working class must stand on its own, rely upon itself to seize power, with an emphasis on revolutionary violence and grassroots organization in order to achieve such ends. This dynamic, fresh-faced take on communist ideology has a great deal of pull among younger students and workers, for whom the fires of political and ideological enthusiasm have yet to dim.

Revolutionary Ba'athism[edit | edit source]

Since its foundation, the Ba'athist Movement proclaimed the necessity of popular revolution led by a guiding vanguard party to cleanse the Arab nation of the wretched influence of reactionaries and feudalists and usher in an Arab renaissance and, with it, a new, revolutionary, socialist society. Despite this emphasis on revolution, many among the Ba'ath still view the party's stance as simply too moderate and advocate a more radical synthesis of Ba'athism and Marxist concepts.

These aptly named "Revolutionary Ba'athists" critique Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar's works from a leftist perspective, as opposed to the rightist perspective that would traditionally level criticism and slander against the Ba'ath. In a reversal of traditional Ba'athist perspectives, the Revolutionary Ba'ath would abandon the view that socialism is a method to be utilised in fulfilment of Arab unity. They would instead adopt the position of Arab unity being a method utilised to achieve socialism, declaring an affinity between the Arab revolution and the class struggle, and rejecting the class collaboration espoused by mainstream Ba'athists.

Seeing the enactment of quasi-Leninist policy to be essential to the rebirth of the Arab nation in the zealous flames of revolutionary fire, they decry the founding duo's abandonment of Marxist dialectics and instead profess a vision strongly influenced by the theories of Marx, Lenin, Bukharin and other militant revolutionaries from across the spectrum of radical leftist politics. This deviant radicalism is seen most clearly in their frequent clashes with the intellectual orthodoxy of the party over the topic of class and the very definition of socialism.

Socialism[edit | edit source]

Socialism is a lot of different things, depending on who you ask. Whether revolutionary or reformist, and whether marxist or utopian, it is and always has been of many different shapes. One thing remains, however: it is an ideology by the people, for the people.

One of the main characteristics of socialism is, of course, the social ownership of the means of production. While it may either be introduced gradually over time or more immediately in the case of a revolution, it is one of its stated goals, as adherents of the ideology believe that it is a way to create a juster, fairer economy, built for the many instead of for the few. Also important to socialism is the establishment of workplace democracy, giving the worker a say in how his business operates, and it is often coupled with a greater-than-usual emphasis on political democracy, whether it be electoral or soviet. Socialism has been, through the ages, equally praised as it has been reviled. And yet, it marches on. Despite the hardships, and despite the setbacks, socialism continues its almost unrelenting course, aiming to free the worker and the common man from the tyranny of capitalism.

Revolutionary Gaitanismo[edit | edit source]

Revolutionary Gaitanismo was born amidst the flames of the Cuban Revolution. It rejects unity through nationality, for unity under a permanent revolution, where the national country will destroy the political country and build a humanist direct democracy. Above all, the goal is democracy, which is directly equated with socialism and vice versa; any new dictatorship is a complete betrayal of the Revolution. As in Gaitánismo, democracy must be extended to all levels of society. Interclassism is replaced with Marxian tenets, and revolutionaries are organized into a highly pluralistic "democratic vanguard." Against capitalist exploitation, it promotes economic democracy, where a decentralized planned economy works with a strong national market, which is subordinate to planning but otherwise operates freely. It also encourages foreign investment to generate capital when the state cannot, though it seeks to heavily limit the influence of foreign interests in national affairs. Revolutionary Gaitanismo sees multi-party and mass politics as either the vehicle for the Revolution or its ultimate goal and welcomes any bourgeoisie that side with the national country as trusted allies. Geopolitically, Revolutionary Gaitanists are pragmatically friendly with the OFN, but ultimately walk their own path as OFN foreign policy is often dictated by big business rather than genuine goodwill. The young guard of Gaitanismo is united in their conviction that revolution, peaceful or armed, is the only way for social change and that all tyrants must fall.

Anarcho-Communism[edit | edit source]

From the streets of Barcelona to the fields of China, anarchism is as tenacious and as stubborn as a rat. It would seem, at least on the surface, that anarchism is like a hydra- for every anarchist that is killed, imprisoned, or 'disappeared', two more will pop up in their place. But why? Anarcho-Communism is a radical left-wing ideology that is contrasted to more standard socialist ideologies like Marxism and democratic socialism by its strong opposition to authority, which it claims is synonymous with the evils of capitalism. Anarcho-communists are also notable for their distaste for large-scale industrialization, preferring to rely on local communes and farms for production. Anarcho-communists have had several brief moments of relative power, most notably with Nestor Makhno's Free Territory in Ukraine in 1920. But just as anarcho-communist societies are united behind common goals, they are also divided by almost everything else. Infighting, chaos, and confusion are present in all anarcho-communist societies, and this usually leads to their downfall. Modern Anarcho-Communism began with the works of thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin in the mid-1800s. Seeking the total destruction of all forms of oppression, from capitalism to racism to the state itself, anarcho-communists exist in their own political bubble- scorned by the left and hated by the right. Nonetheless, Anarcho-Communism serves as a beacon of hope for any who have been cast aside by the existing system. One can be sure that no matter how dark and authoritarian the world becomes, anarchists will be hiding in the shadows, waiting for their opportunity to spring forth and realize their cries of 'no gods, no masters'.

Christian Socialism[edit | edit source]

Christian Socialism is a broad umbrella term to describe all beliefs that combine the moral teachings of Jesus Christ with the economic theory of left-wing ideologues. This mix of spiritualism and materialism may seem like an oxymoron at first glance, but that has not stopped thinkers and theologians from synthesizing the two. They consider themselves to be just as devout as any other Christian, and they reject Marxist beliefs that religion is an "opiate of the masses" that is ultimately incompatible with the goal of revolution. Although many argue that socialism is inherently hostile to Christianity, Christian socialists argue that it is actually capitalism that is incompatible: they consider it to be akin to idolatry, a cult of the Almighty Dollar that encourages greed and condemns charity. They turn to the Bible to support their viewpoints, pointing out that Jesus said "One cannot serve both God and wealth," as well as how the earliest Christians "held everything in common" and collectively shared their possessions. Only collectivist social policies, they say, can stay close to Christ's teachings while also helping all those in society.

Revolution Frontism[edit | edit source]

The Revolutionary Front is, at least in theory, a unified coalition of various sects, strains, and factions of the socialist, communist, and anarchist left, all with the intended purpose of gaining institutional and government power to establish socialism. In practice, this means such varying ideologies as Democratic Socialists, who believe in a revolution through the ballot box, and authoritarian socialists, who are disgusted with what they describe as 'bourgeois democracy', are expected to cooperate and work together for the advancement of socialism. This, unsurprisingly, can lead to a very incoherent bloc, with actual governing policies being based upon internal compromise or the result of certain factions winning out against others. Typically, the Revolutionary Front is most often seen in places where the political left can only hope to maintain power through a big tent and coalition building, or in places that are under threat from the right wing that seeks to undermine the ability of such left parties to exist in the first place. Revolutionary Front leaders are as diverse as their base, and are often instrumental in maintaining the survival of the Front in the first place, if not its actual creator. Whether a Revolutionary Front can survive its leader, however, depends on whether it can learn to sacrifice ideological purity for the sake of political (and sometimes literal) survival.

Ultravisionary Socialism[edit | edit source]

Since Mankind first glanced at the celestial dome, it has dreamed of reaching higher than the ground it stands over. For that, mankind has evolved and banded together, reaching ever higher peaks of knowledge, so that one day, it could fulfill their existential inheritance. While many would be content to claim that Communism is the next step of human revolution, Ultravisionaries are not content to simply sit on their laurels. A combination of Communism, with a heavy focus on the sciences, Ultravisionarism sees Socialism as not only the next step but also an aspect of the next stage of human progress: the complete unity of the disciplines and laws of science. The stars could not be farther. Yet, there is glory eternal for those who look ever forward.

Agrarian Socialism[edit | edit source]

Unlike Marxist Socialism, which theorizes the driving force of the revolution to be the urban proletariat, Agrarian Socialism places the peasantry at the forefront of the revolution. Mostly popular in scarcely-industrialized, undeveloped states, its ideal society is based on an agrarian vision of society, where the land is owned by the people instead of by a landlord class. Along with a socialistic economic system, and the collective ownership of the means of production, agrarian socialism aims to realize an agrarian utopia, where the farmer toils away happily, for he knows that he truly and finally gets to reap the ripe fruits of his labor. Important to note, however, is that Agrarian Socialism is not an inherently revolutionary ideology: indeed, it can come to power through the ballot box as well as through the barrel of a gun, which makes it a quite broad and adaptable ideology to its supporters. Of course, it is not without its detractors: claims from the left that socialism and true equality cannot be achieved without industrialization coincide with more "traditional" critiques from the right, which argue against the merits of socialism altogether.

Syndicalism[edit | edit source]

What is socialism? In short, it is the workers' ownership of the means of production, whether directly or through the state. What, then, is more purely socialistic than Syndicalism - the idea that workers wrest from the capitalist class control of society and the economy through the revolutionary action of the general strike, and build a new society on the basis of trade unions directly composed of the workers themselves, with no middleman? Syndicalism argues for direct action - strikes, sabotage of production, and demonstrations - against the capitalist system both to secure better conditions for workers while living under capitalism and to ultimately overthrow and replace it altogether. Though the successes of the October Revolution and other factors sent the syndicalist movement into decline and marginalization, it has never truly gone away; perhaps one day, a new generation of syndicalists will strike fear into the hearts of the bourgeoisie and politicians alike as the militants and saboteurs of the early 1900s did.

Pan-Africanism[edit | edit source]

First springing to life in the early 20th century, Pan-Africanism stands as the product of years of European oppression, from the British to the French to the Germans to a dozen other nations besides. Its proponents reject the idea of individual African nations, socialist or otherwise- instead preaching that, in order to truly stand against European colonizers, Africa must stand united under one banner. Falling on the far-left of the political spectrum, Pan-Africanism can easily differ from its counterpart in African Socialism by its vanguardist attitude, its emphasis on anti-imperialism, and its staunch adherence to a pan-national identity for what Europe once called the "Dark Continent". While its adherents are primarily found in West Africa- specifically Cameroon- and South Africa as a major part of the ANC, ideologues can be found from Cape Town to Cairo- even gaining traction among Black communities in the United States and the Caribbean. Motivated, angry, and aggressive in spreading its influence, those with interests in the region should keep an eye on the Pan-Africanists.

Ba'athism[edit | edit source]

"One Nation, Bearing an Eternal Message." The brainchild of Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, Ba'athism is a revolutionary Arab nationalist movement, aimed at creating a 'renaissance' across the Arab world by means of revolution against foreign oppressors. Ba'athist ideology combines notions of pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and secularism into an ideological platform that aims to mobilize and subsequently unify the whole Arab nation through revolutionary struggle, regardless of faith or region. The Ba'ath party functions as the universal vanguard for the Arab nation, accelerating its development in order to bring about the renaissance into all aspects of life. Its ostensible goals are progress, liberty, and socialism as defined by Aflaq, within a context suited to the Arab world. Dedication to modernization and progress means that the party opposes not only foreign rule but also all the forms of feudal and noble reaction across the Arab world. Liberty in the Ba'athism sense does not necessarily mean liberal parliamentary democracy, as it may subvert the revolution, and socialism here substitutes the Marxist notion of class struggle for a national struggle against colonialism. 'Arab Socialism' is considered an important means of reaching the Renaissance, but not its ultimate purpose. In reality, the ideological purity of Ba'athist parties across the Middle East is incredibly varied and intrinsically linked with local culture and tradition, as well as an influx of foreign political theories. The policies followed by the Ba'athist movements range from the rampant militarism of some branches to promises of representative democracy and socialism by others. Their only common goal is the creation of a united Arab state, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf.

Left-Wing Nationalism[edit | edit source]

From the East to the West, from the most developed nation to the least, there arises a new trend in politics of the new age: left-wing nationalism. Espousing left-wing ideals of equality, class consciousness, and the ideal of socialist modernity, its believers aim to challenge imperialism by fashioning these ideas into a clarion call for self-determination and independence. The proponents of left-wing nationalism transform socialist agitation into a weapon with which to combat either imperialist interference or influence in society. In the Cold War, left-wing nationalism is a wide label: it describes both revolutionary tendencies and electoral reform; it covers a broad range of adherents, from Europe to Asia, from Africa to America. Despite this wide-ranging appellation, however, they all have something in common: nationalism is not irreconcilable with socialism or socialistic policies, and self-determination and political independence is a necessary steps in achieving equality and liberty.

Guevarism[edit | edit source]

"Of all the colorful personalities that took part in the Cuban Revolution, only one ever reached Fidel Castro's international fame - the Argentine Marxist known as Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. His ideas have come to be known as Guevarism. In its current context, Guevarism is an umbrella term for a variety of leftist movements whose chief distinction is their organization around the Revolutionary Coordination Junta and Guevara as a rallying figurehead. Radically breaking from all mainstream communist thought, Guevarism outright rejects the need for any established vanguard party to organize a Marxist revolution. Instead, small fast-moving bands of insurgents act as the vanguard themselves, mimicking Che's own experiences in the Cuban Revolution. Through generating discontent among the peasant class, propagandizing, and guerrilla warfare, the insurgents will put enough pressure on any corrupt and oligarchic political system to stir the populace into armed rebellion. Its fundamentally unifying tenets are an inherent focus on the peasantry and rural areas over the traditional urban workers, armed struggle, internationalism, and a belief in revolutionary willpower - that any group of sufficiently motivated militants will find success. Guevarism has mostly found success in Latin America as the mainstream strand of leftist revolutionary thought, but it lacks a formal doctrine due to its internationalist nature, and in consequence, the many differences in thought within the organizations tied to the Junta.

Nasserism[edit | edit source]

To put it most simply and most incompletely, Nasserism is the ideology of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Like any ideology defined by the dictates of its founder, it is characterized by a certain level of flexibility and a lack of rigidness. However, in spite of this, Nasserism is characterized by three core principles. First is its Pan-Arabism, advocating for a union of Arab republics to secure itself across the Middle East to better protect against incursions from imperialist powers. Nasserism's flavor of Pan-Arabism is also characterized by its secular nature, often putting it into conflict with other grassroots ideologies in the region that are more colored by religious thought, whether it be Islamic, Christian, or Jewish. Even if an Arab nation could not be formed, Nasser looked to aid and support the Arab world with only some regard for their own ideology, so as to protect the region as a whole. The second is, of course, its simultaneous embrace of socialism and rejection of communism. While self-described communists and their parties are suppressed as it is seen as being at odds with Arab tradition, they wholeheartedly embrace a fluid interpretation of Arab Socialism, most obviously manifesting in a generally anti-capitalist stance and the aggressive nationalization of Egypt's resources.

The third is Anti-Imperialism. One could even argue that the first two principles are merely a function of this third principle when you get right down to it. Nasser's strong anti-imperialist stances are the core motivation for involvement outside of Egypt itself, as well as the populist rallying cry that lends the ideology most of its fervent support. Beyond these broad points, Nasserism is an ideology that has in of itself a great deal of leeway without an orthodoxy to limit its possible allegiances and shifts as the situation demands, whether for Egypt's sake or Nasser's own."

Neocommunism[edit | edit source]

Neocommunism, originating from Italy's Enrico Berlinguer's PCI, is less of an ideology and more of a collection of distinct revisionist-based trends among European nations, with as much variety in specific policy prescriptions as there are differences in each particular nation that Eurocommunism has spread to. There are, however, various commonalities that unite them, and that is a belief in the peaceful revolution through the ballot box, an explicit opposition to the human rights abuses that other communist regimes have committed, and a recognition that all communist parties have to deal with different circumstances in different countries, as against the Bukharin 'one size fits all' approach. Loyally committed to democracy and the pluralistic rights that come from such traditionally Western institutions, Neocommunism criticizes the collapsed Soviet Union under Bukharin as materially incapable of truly satisfying the conditions through which communism could be established, in addition to having its vanguardist ideology undermine the will of the working class. In contrast, Neocommunism seeks to maintain its interests as a vehicle of working-class consciousness and power. Revisionist Marxist and reformist in nature, Neocommunism is committed to ending the exploitation of the capitalist system through peaceful means.

African Socialism[edit | edit source]

They talk of the failure of socialism, but where is the success of capitalism in Africa? African Socialism is an ideology formed as a result of the sudden independence achieved by many former French and British colonies in the wake of the Second World War. Instead of following their former colonizers in pursuing a capitalist model, African Socialists sought out an ideology that was more afrocentric. The main distinction between African Socialism and more classical strains of socialism is the focus on the sharing of economic resources in a traditional African way. Some African Socialists believe that Africa's background in tribal community life excludes the validity of the theory of class struggle, and makes socialism the natural way of life for African nations. While pan-Africanist, this form of African Socialism does not conform to the ideology adhered to by Cameroon. This form of African Socialism is much more grassroots and decentralized. Seeking a more moderate path, this strain of African Socialism seeks to respect local African traditions and structures. It is also not focused on expansionism, unlike the Cameroonian brand, although it is not necessarily opposed to violence."

Islamic Socialism[edit | edit source]

Look at all religions. Look at Moses. Did Moses not rebel before the three symbols? Korah, was the greatest capitalist of his time. Balaam, the greatest priest of the deviated religion of multi-theism. And the Pharaoh, the greatest symbol of political power of his time. Did he not arise against the status quo?" - Ali Shariati

The rise of Islam represented the greatest political, social, and economic revolution to have ever rocked the Arabian peninsula and the world at large. The self-serving and corrupt polytheism that came before it was uprooted from every crevice of Arabian society, and a new revolutionary order that promised a more egalitarian state of affairs and served to unify the disparate tribes of Arabia into one whole would come to be. And yet to many, among them, Abu Dhur al-Ghiffari, a companion of the prophet, the accumulation of wealth that followed the death of the Islamic Prophet was nothing but a bastardization of Islamic doctrine and ideals.

Drawing upon this analysis, the enshrined principle of Zakat and the revolutionary nature of the First Islamic State, the Islamic socialists - be they Sunnis or Shiites - aim to liberate the Ummah from the chains of capitalism and the reactionary culture of self-indulgence and exploitation that it perpetuates. And from upon the ruins of the capitalist system, the old Ummah will be morphed into a revolutionary, social, and anti-colonial community that redistributes its wealth equitably, ensures that no one person is left hungry, unclothed or without shelter and that no toiler is left uncompensated for their labor.

Reformist Socialism[edit | edit source]

As much as the idealism of Socialism seeks to proselytize an egalitarian vision of humanity free from the shackles of capitalistic and demagogic imperialism, it is almost irrefutable that the first attempts to form Socialist societies were anything other than the product of violent extremism; between the sheer brutality of the Bolshevik Revolution, the vicious infighting that plagued the first Republic of China and the preeminent nightmare that arose from the Weimar Collapse, it is hard to find examples where global antipathy for social revolution is not tragically deserved. It is from the failures of Lenin and Bukharin that Reformist Socialism began to form; born from moralistic revulsion at the authoritarian tendencies of mainstream Communism, seeking to abolish the paranoiac and autocratic methods associated with the former Soviet Union and their imitators, they firmly believe that a peaceful revolution and transition to an idyllic, egalitarian society and economy can, and should be accomplished through reform over revolution and that through the popular support of the common people, the bloody beginnings of the Socialist Revolution can finally be redeemed.

Buddhist Socialism[edit | edit source]

Buddhist Socialism, sometimes also called Dhammic Socialism, refers to a wide range of views within Asia which in some way combine the economic and social equity associated with socialism and the traditional beliefs, precepts, and morals of Buddhist thinking. It is a broad term, not limited to a specific sect, and individuals who identify with the label hold varying convictions on democracy, monarchy, Marxism, and a number of other key issues. Buddhist Socialism was inspired in some images of Norodom Sihanouk, in others visions of Peljidiin Genden, and in others still, snapshots of Buddhadāsa Bhikku. However, this diversity in thought does not render the term useless, as Buddhist Socialism still refers to quite a specific political phenomenon. It represents a drive among a number of leaders and communities to modernize Buddhist thought and combine it with the influences of Western philosophies, yet so too does it represent a partial rejection of Western views on government requiring separation from a singular guiding religion. To a Buddhist socialist, the world Western socialists speak of is incompatible with their secular values, for how would a world of egalitarianism without the trappings of greed be possible but through the teachings of the Buddha?

Progressivism[edit | edit source]

A moderate response to the excesses of capitalism, Progressivism, composed of moderate social democrats and center left progressives, intends to be a middle ground between social liberalism and social democracy, with a focus on economic efficiency, a moderate welfare state, and a major focus on social justice. Pragmatic and willing to compromise, Progressivism believes in gradual change over time, with a focus on making capitalism more humane while allowing for its best aspects to shrine through.

Progressivism believes in allowing room for the free market to take over while maintaining a welfare state intended to catch those who would fall through the cracks. Rather than focusing on economic equality, Progressivism intends to fight against institutional problems that harm equality of opportunity. Racism, sexism and other 'isms' are the main enemy of Progressivism, who believe that it is the government's place to protect the weak.

Economically, Progressivism believes that government management is inefficient and that, rather, the private market, with public oversight, could be beneficial to both parties. This extends to matters of infrastructure, healthcare, and even basic government operations. With this efficiency, poverty can be eliminated through saved welfare spending and opportunities for a better life.

Gaitanismo[edit | edit source]

To Colombia, Gaitanismo is not an ideology but a new national ideal for Latin America itself, and an inspiration for left-wing politicians across the region. Born with the entrance of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán into politics, Gaitanismo emerged as liberal socialism, staunchly anti-fascist populism, and a democratic alternative to Bolshevism. Eclectic in its social decisions, Gaitanismo aims to reach as broad a base as possible, to extend democracy through all levels of society. Replacing the bourgeoisie and proletariat, Gaitanismo has the national country and the political country, the former the people, the latter the oligarchical elites. The national country must overthrow the political country to create a genuine liberal democracy, united as one by nationality, and a peaceful compromise between owner and worker. Socialist economic policies that welcome foreign investment and reforms that strengthen democracy are the trademarks of Gaitanismo. Geopolitically, it calls for inter-Americanism, namely close cooperation with the OFN and other liberal democracies to fund revolutionary reforms. Gaitanismo brought Colombia four golden years of peace and international admiration. The murder of its founder and the chaos of La Violencia only made Gaitanismo's flame grow brighter, and its legacy of success can be reclaimed, not only in Colombia but wherever Gaitán's flaming speeches left a mark.

Social Democracy[edit | edit source]

Social Democracy is an umbrella term covering leftist movements that still wish to operate within a mostly capitalist framework. Proponents of Social Democracy still believe in markets, the ability of an individual to run a business and manage others as employees, and in the freedom to earn and spend money, while also advocating for vast social programs like welfare, free and public healthcare, shelter for the homeless, and good minimum wages among many others. While decidedly on the left end of the political spectrum, followers of Social Democracy and those of other leftist ideologies like Communism and traditional Socialism generally dislike each other, and they rarely intermingle or work together. Social Democrats do not advocate for the revolution and radical rebuilding of the system that their further-left counterparts do and are more accepting of various other democratic ideologies.

Democratic Socialism[edit | edit source]

Democratic Socialism covers those who believe that socialism and democracy can not only be established but that the establishment of one cannot be established without the other. Socialism and democracy are one and the same, no more capable of being removed than lyrics from a song, or rhythm from a poem. Democratic socialism thus places a high value upon democracy in both the workplace and in government, with all believing in a minimum input from workers in the production of goods and services. Typically, democratic socialists believe in a decentralized or market socialist economy, with a mix of both nationalized companies and small, private workers' cooperatives and syndicates. Democratic socialism is typically reformist Marxism in nature, although it is not unheard of for revolutionaries to use the term.

This particular strain of socialism was pioneered by European Social Democratic parties in the 19th and early 20th century, with a major base of support being unions, workers, and middle to upper middle-class intellectuals. While social democracy gradually turned towards a regulated form of welfare capitalism, democratic socialists still maintain a loyalty to the creation of a socialist state based on human rights and democratic voting.

Left-Wing Populism[edit | edit source]

As the popular masses work all over the world in search of riches, hoping that they someday will attain the level of their masters; as inequality and hunger ravage even in developed countries; as the elites enrich themselves off the backs of the people, some people stand up and say "No". No to poverty, no to hunger, and most of all no to wealth disparity, for injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Left-Wing Populism is the umbrella under which these people fall, although it is not a coherent ideology as much as it is a broad movement: combining anti-elites and left-wing rhetoric with populistic economic measures, those who claim affiliation to it style themselves as the defenders of the "common people", opposing the economic elites and the establishment who oppress the poor and the little man. However, it is not too rooted in socialist theory, generally eschewing Marx or Lenin in favor of James Connolly or Léon Blum, and its most radical part is quite often its rhetoric, calling for the uprooting of the political and economic elites and for a fairer and juster society made by and for the people. And with a lot of effort and a tad of luck, such a society might even come true.

Left Kemalism[edit | edit source]

In prior decades, Kemalism held an almost monolithic presence within Turkish politics, encompassing left, right, and center. However, in recent years, Turkey's right flank has steadily drifted away from Kemalism's desire to emulate Western notions of progress, largely due to Kemalist prohibitions on religious expression and growing support for a model inspired by the fascist powers. As a response, many Kemalists have decided to emphasize the progressive aspects of their ideology and Atatürk's legacy, seeking to realign Kemalism to the left of center, with a much greater commitment to social welfare. Emphasizing populism and reformism, as opposed to their more nationalism-oriented orthodox cousins, Left Kemalists continue to espouse a Turkish national identity which may continue to alienate certain minority groups.

Labor Zionism[edit | edit source]

"A land without a people for a people without land." Labor Zionism is the primary wing of the Zionist Movement as well as its left wing; it incorporates both socialist and nationalist elements in the attempt to merge a new Jewish national identity. This is done mainly through the use of both urban trade unions, most notably the Histadrut, which the majority of Jewish workers belong to, and the Kibbutzim, a rural commune that many a Labor Zionist will proudly boast of as the closest humanity has come to achieving true socialism. While initially many categorized the native Palestinians as "Shela Neelama" - the Hidden Question - modern Labor Zionists are split on how to best solve the "Palestinian Issue," with many advocating for an equitable and free two-state solution where both peoples may enjoy their right to self-determination. A minority advocate for drastic measures such as expulsion of the Palestinians, who they see as lacking a concrete national identity and instead having an almost generic 'Arab' one, from the land of Israel. A smaller minority still advocates for confederation with their neighbors. Regardless, Labor Zionism remains defined by a simple creed: Zionism first, Socialism second.

Popular Front[edit | edit source]

United we stand, divided we fall. No ideology exemplifies this so clearly as the Popular Front. Most typically drawn from a very, very broadly leftist set of ideologies, the Popular Front can include support from hardcore, insurrectionist communists all the way to democratic liberals and everything in between. Sometimes, in extreme cases, it can even include conservatives in the mix, though that is certainly a rarity. Often, these temporary arrangements are made when there is a significant shift in the status quo or the threat of such a shift in some cases, and those opposed put aside their differences to fight against it, whether that be electoral, with armed conflict, or by other means.

The concept of the Popular Front is as broad in its application as it is in its composition. The Front is usually forged first by finding some bare minimum ground, often of the moral variety, upon which to oppose the nascent threat. In other instances, a common matter of policy or ideology provides the adhesive element that keeps the Popular Front united, if the Front itself might lean more socialist or more liberal in its composition. And then its strategy is solidified, whether it is an agreement to vote in accordance with one another or to support one another in terms of direct action and conflicts in the streets. The sheer variety of applications of the Popular Front, as it should be clear, makes it hard to define precisely. As such, it may not be considered much of an ideology at all, so much as a strategy that parties and groups of parties pursue to advance their ideologies.

Social Radicalism[edit | edit source]

While many in the liberal sphere have utterly rejected Marxist principles and the ideologies that it spawned, others have found common ground on many of its more reasonable points. Equality is a common value between both the radicals and the socialists, after all, and much ground has yet to be gained until true equality is reached. While mainstream Radicalism will reject all socialists and socialist philosophy wholesale as a matter of principle, it is the Social Radical who finds common ground with them, reaching for their mutual goals and putting aside historical rivalries to do so. Above all else, the Social Radical aims for the establishment of equality, an end to want, and the elevation of social programs to aid in the former two ambitions. They are willing to make whatever compromises are necessary to end inequality in whatever forms it takes. Many further to their right call them idealistic, naive even, and those further to their left call them unimaginative, lacking in ambition or true dedication to the cause they profess. Despite this disdain they receive from both ends of the political spectrum, Social Radicalism continues to plow its own road ahead, to finish the work that the Enlightenment had started.

Christian Progressivism[edit | edit source]

Christian Progressivism is a form of Christian Democracy in which a heavy amount of emphasis is put upon the ideals of justice, tolerance, and the need to care for the poor and oppressed as preached by Jesus Christ. It differs from most other forms of Christian Democracy by virtue of a greater impetus for social change, as opposed to a call for conservatism, though it still maintains the belief that Democracy is the best means of achieving Christian values. Oftentimes, it seeks to interpret Christianity through the lens of modern knowledge, science, and ethics, as opposed to those held at the time of the writing of the scriptures. In terms of economic policy, Christian Progressivism is usually in the center, though it can lean further to the left or to the right depending on the specific application. Socially, Christian Progressivism is usually center-left, being especially likely to be so on issues such as Civil Rights. However, Christian Progressives can often lean conservative on certain issues due to the fact that the ideology is still heavily based on Christian thought. Christian Progressivism also tends to place more weight on Christian values and morality, as opposed to adherence to specific Christian doctrine.

Left-Wing Agrarianism[edit | edit source]

Since before the Russian Revolution of 1917, the world has known a uniquely Socialist blend of rural-oriented politics; Left-Wing Agrarianism. Born from the minds of men like Alexander Herzen and Pyotr Lavrov, this new strain of Agrarianist thought is primarily oriented around typical agrarian goals: prioritization of farming in the national framework, the promotion of the farmer in the ideals of the state, and an attempt at egalitarianism; though Left-Wing Agrarianism comes with its own set of rules. Conflicting with the typical Bukharinist-Marxist divide, Left-Wing Agrarianism heavily prioritizes the rural farmer in everyday life and function of the state and sees them as a class in of themselves, no matter how many times the unique strain of Socialism finds itself being called ideological heathens in doing so.

Liberal Socialism[edit | edit source]

A propagandist or an illiterate might well look at Liberal Socialism and say something along the lines of "There is no difference between a liberal socialist and a progressive democrat". This is wrong—a liberal socialist, unlike a progressive, will self-identify as a socialist and have at least a theoretical aim in the construction of a socialist system. Primary doctrines of liberal socialism include leveraging the market to further socialist goals, emphasizing welfare systems built via the construction of quality public services, and the expansion of public-private partnerships as an alternative to nationalizations. The liberal socialist ideology developed as the middle class grew in many nations through the 60s and 70s, and lost interest in outright socialism without becoming opposed to left-wing governance. Though liberal socialism insists that it remains socialist, this can be brought into question at times, especially when the policies of a nominally liberal socialist party seem similar to those of a liberal party. If this is the case, it is entirely possible that more orthodox socialist factions may reduce support or outright oppose a governing liberal socialist party, which in turn can cause massive rifts within the left wing of a multiparty democracy.

Utopian Socialism[edit | edit source]

The earliest strand of its kind, Utopian Socialism has been used as both a label of endearment and insult by leftists through the years. Originally pioneered in the early 18th and 19th centuries, Utopian socialism is primarily based upon both a distinct dislike of class conflict and a belief in the perfectibility of mankind and of society in general. Whether it be through the creation of local communes, making industry more efficient through nationalization of certain goods and services, or just simply a moral belief in raising the entire society as a whole through government and local intervention, utopian socialists believe that mankind as a whole can be brought up to a higher standard of living than what capitalism can currently deliver to us. The biggest distinction between utopian socialists and their Marxist cousins is a distinct dislike of class conflict or revolution, believing instead that all classes would be willing to adhere to such a system through convincing. This places it in opposition to the materialistic worldview that Marxism and more pragmatic socialists who intend on creating working-class coalitions to win power. While most utopian experiments have failed, many persist in their experiments, believing that, one day, a perfect system of humanity can be created, and that all of mankind can bask in its glory of a newer, better world.

Eastern Progressivism[edit | edit source]

For most people on the left side of the American political spectrum, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the defining leader. With his deep roots in the Democratic Party and the brain trust of established experts, he built an array of programs that formed the foundation of the modern welfare state. But Franklin is not the only figure of inspiration. For some, the Roosevelt of Hyde Park was too establishment, too traditional. Some find their inspiration elsewhere—in the rollicking and unpredictable example of his distant relative Teddy who worked his way up through the corrupt New York system and determined to change it. Eastern Progressives are inspired by this example. Familiar with established systems and convinced of the need for radical change, Eastern Progressivism is the ideology of reformers and public advocates. It is a movement dominated by large, old-money figures who—out of a sense of duty or for their political survival—have arrayed themselves against the institutions built by their ancestors long ago. They see an urgent need to advance science, economic development, and liberal political thought for the betterment of all people across society. While Eastern Progressives have much in common with their Western counterparts, there are several notable differences. First, Eastern Progressives are inspired more by large, established, and orderly cities like New York and Boston than by the openness of the American frontier. They are less gun-toting than their Western counterparts and built around established power centers. Second, this very familiarity with established power centers often makes them less willing to destroy them outright. Rather than burn the system down, Eastern Progressives are often more focused on renovating those systems and expanding them to include new groups and people.

Western Progressivism[edit | edit source]

For good and ill, America's sense of nationhood is inextricably tied to the frontier. The great rivers and prairies of the west were a land of opportunity where any man, regardless of birth, could make his way forward with nothing but grit and determination. And now, the American West is the epicenter of the latest attempt to make the United States truly live up to its creed of liberty and justice for all: Western Progressivism. While the Progressivism of the East Coast has long since turned to compromise with the traditional institutions and power brokers of the United States in the name of change, Western Progressives turn up their noses at this pragmatism. They see all the traditional institutions of political power, from corporations to machine politics to career politicians themselves, as nothing more than tools for the powerful to keep the common man down. Western Progressives have a reputation as being a more authentic representation of the will of those they represent than the politicians of DC, immersed as they are in backroom politics. But with this authenticity can come a lack of unity and purpose, and a refusal to compromise even when doing so is necessary for political success. Now, Western Progressivism has found its home with the Progressive Caucus of the NPP, seeking to lead a new American Revolution to sweep aside the legacy of racial and class inequalities forever. They have risen a wave of popular disenchantment both with the inequality of American society and the corruption of Washington to the White House. But now, they must not simply agitate but govern. Will this new generation of American dreamers finally change the country for good, or will they become that which they swore to destroy?

Liberalism[edit | edit source]

The seed that was planted in the halls of ancient Athens, began to sprout with the American Revolution and finally blossomed into the world after the Congress of Vienna; the deep meaning behind the word Liberalism, rooted in the word "Liberty", has arguably become one, if not the most transformative political philosophies in history.

On a fundamental level, Liberalism proclaims the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, guaranteed the right to equality under the law, representation , accountability, and that they are entitled to these rights regardless of upbringing, class or country of origin, and while the subject of who qualifies for which has -and in many places still is- a longstanding subject of debate, civilizations who adhere to the principles of Liberalism on a base level all maintain an uncompromising loyalty to the principle of equality and freedom.

This fundamental truth makes virtually all forms of liberalism the de-facto arch enemy of fascism and totalitarianism and their fanatic cohorts, aspiring to be the dominant political compass of the world in defiance of the New World Order. While the cause of liberalism suffered a near-fatal blow in its defeat in the Second World War, with the former great liberal democracies of France and Britain having fallen to the Nazi jackboot, it lives on in the liberal democracies of the Western Hemisphere, and even if they, or the whole world itself even, crushed, it will never be stamped out of the human consciousness.

So long as a single human being possesses a will that is their own, the torch of liberalism shall never be extinguished.

National Liberalism[edit | edit source]

Originating in the continental European democratic movements of the 19th century, National Liberalism is a synthesis of liberal political theory with nationalist philosophy on the integrity of the nation-state. It retains liberalism's emphasis on individual and economic freedom, but stresses that the continued health of the two is predicated on continued, unthreatened national sovereignty. National Liberal theory can manifest in anti-immigration and economically protectionist policy, but also in support for limited industrial planning and state subsidies for critical economic sectors.

National Liberal praxis, however, is not tightly bound by strict ideological tenets. Because National Liberal theory orbits the salient concerns of sovereignty and liberty, subservient policy areas can be reoriented in their defense. Protectionist economic policy can sometimes give way to free trade agreements, and industrial planning to free enterprise, if doing so is considered conducive to the maintenance of state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Liberal Radicalism[edit | edit source]

Something of a relic of the past, the concept of Radicalism holds its roots in the days of the French Revolution in specific and the Enlightenment in general, and has kept itself close to those roots moreso than the adherents of other liberal ideologies. To the Radical, the ideals of democracy, secularism, and the development and advancement of human rights come before all other priorities.

As the world continued on into the 20th century, things began to change as more and more radical ideologies took center stage. As first Marxist, and then later Fascist, ideologies began to overwhelm the continents of Europe and Asia, many strains of liberalism began to shift and evolve as reactions to the changing tides. In the 40's, Italy's and Germany's utter and complete victories over the democracies of Western Europe looked to be the deathknell of their ideology, but twenty years later, one can see that has not been the case.

After the stagnations and failures of Italy and Germany in the 1950's, people began to look for answers once more, and a renewed faith in Enlightenment ideals has taken root in many parts of the world, especially in the West. A torch once thought snuffed out has been lit once more, and has been raised to the heavens as many call for a return to the virtues liberty, equality, and brotherhood.

Christian Liberalism[edit | edit source]

In the gospel of the Bible, it is written: "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself". Such words have come to dominate a spectrum of political thought within various cultures adherent to the teachings of the Bible and the philosophy of Jesus Christ known to contemporary politics as Christian Liberalism; contrary to the predominantly conservative leanings of most politics where it relates to the Church, Christian Liberals are firmly in the belief, in a general sense, that all men should be treated equally and with respect, and that any overtures towards economic or societal separatism is not only a violation of the rights of man and individual liberty, but a bluntly immoral attitude that goes against the Christian principle of equality, and believe staunchly in the ideals of charity, compassion and to provide shelter and aid to the destitute and infirm.

Christian Liberals will often be contrary to stiff opposition to societal reforms, or may even support said reforms themselves, believing in the words of Christ to "Render unto Caesar" and that government has no place interfering in the lives of its citizens on the basis of religion, even their own, and while they tend be averse to more radically progressive or socialist movements, with none more feared than the prospect of communism, Christian Liberals, by and large, are avowed allies to the idealism of liberal democracy, and will champion the cause of the underclass, righteously defend the cause of democracy under the providence of the Lord.

Liberal Agrarianism[edit | edit source]

Out of the many strains of Agrarian politics extant since the rise of Agrarianism as a system of thought, Liberal Agrarianism has pride of place right in the middle of politics. Liberal agrarians fervently advocate personal and economic freedom, particularly that of the farmer, the peasant, and the average rural citizen. They adhere to a proud tradition begun by the various liberal farmer's parties throughout Europe and especially.

Liberal agrarianism is very distinct from its counterparts in other political-economic clades. They eschew the traditionalism and social conservatism of right-wing agrarians, instead preferring a socially moderate or even liberal stance. The socialist definition of economic justice promoted by left-wing agrarians is also dismissed by Liberal Agrarianism; to a liberal agrarian, "economic justice" is met by a capitalistic system with all appropriate changes made so that the common people of the ruralities can live prosperously.

Progressive Liberalism[edit | edit source]

Finding common ground among western democracies at the turn of the century, Progressive Liberalism defines efforts on the part of the liberal center of the political theater to reconcile the tenets of classical liberalism -particularly free market economics and strong civic nationalism- with the emerging desire for governmental and societal reform incumbent with the rise of mainstream progressivism that emerged in the years prior to, during, and after the First World War, whose stance towards aligning traditional liberal thought with a more contemporary progressive ideal was facilitated through the rise of progressive-minded liberal thinkers such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, David Lloyd George, and Alexander Kerensky.

With the triumph of Fascism in Europe, many Progressive Liberal movements in the west have been, in many cases, facing an uphill battle; fear-mongering over the loss of the great european democracies has seen many Progressive and Liberal reforms sidelined by mainstream liberalism and conservatism out of protectionism against the New World Order, and in an effort to counter what they see as an increasingly untenable status quo, Progressive Liberalism has seen a new resurgence as a means to counter the influence of autocratic regimes in Europe and East Asia. While they tend to lean closer to the left of the political center on social issues compared to mainstream liberals, they are nonetheless committed to the ideals of individual egalitarianism and liberty as a matter of course, as far as economics go, Progressive Liberals often remain committed to the ideal of the Free Market, although individual movements and politicians pushing for market regulation and controls are not unheard of.

Classical Liberalism[edit | edit source]

Framing itself as the ideological descendants of the Greek and Roman Republics, Classical Liberalism is a contemporary branch of liberal democratic philosophy which found a surge in popularity in the reemergence of democratic institutions in the 18th Century, the most formative of which being the American Revolution, which prided itself as the vanguard for the reintroduction of liberal thinking in global politics.

Commonly considered orthodoxy by liberal thinkers, Classical Liberalism promulgates a belief in individual egalitarianism, free market economics, and a drive towards societal cohesion through promotion of moderation and reform; it tends to put more of an emphasis on preserving the rights of personal freedom first and foremost, putting it in conflict with the more staunchly economy-centric Market Liberals, combatively traditionalist Status-Quo Conservatives, as well as contemporary Progressivism for promoting expansion of the civil government to combat social inequality at the expense of the free market.

Liberal Technocracy[edit | edit source]

Technocracy can be distilled into a single idea: that those citizens most qualified, having the strongest experience, learning, and knowledge in the scholarly fields most pertinent to the welfare of the state, should be those to run the affairs of state. A technocrat's idea of the ideal rulers for the nation are problem-solvers: researchers, theoreticians, scientists, businessmen, and engineers.

Attempting, to the best of their ability, to divorce liberal democracy from party politics—or 'particracy', as some call it—liberal technocrats will strive to reform the state into a technocracy. Recruiting on merit to the best of their ability, their aim is to take away as much power as possible from the hands of elected officials and party cadres. This may seem undemocratic; many have raised this objection. Liberal technocrats' response to that charge is generally to point at the sclerotic, byzantine nature of the state bureaucracies they have often emerged to respond to.

So taking away power from incompetent, illiterate elected officials is undemocratic. But how democratic is permitting bureaucrats to form political mafias that bloat the State and destroy its ability to get things done? How democratic is it to permit government officials, whose job is allegedly to serve the people, to instead engage in eye-watering degrees of internal corruption and nepotism that eat away at the state's institutions and government?

If that is one's idea of liberty, so be it—but the liberal technocrat will never accept that answer. The State must serve its people, not parasitise them; technocracy is the sole guarantor of such a state.

Dynastic Liberalism[edit | edit source]

To be a member of the US Democratic Party is to be part of a grand liberal tradition, passed down from one generation to the next. It is to be the inheritor of Madison and Jefferson's belief in the need for constitutional, democratic government. It is to be the standard bearer of Wilson's internationalism and support for robust institutions. It is to be the defender of the welfare state put in place by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and expanded by his successors Dwight D. Eisenhower and Estes Kefauver. The modern American liberal is the culmination of all these figures—a stalwart defender of civil rights, equality, social justice, and a regulated market economy. They look toward the future while firmly rooted in the traditions of the past.


The liberalism of John F. Kennedy is no different. With his soaring rhetoric and unabashed optimism, John Kennedy urges Americans to look forward to new frontiers and new opportunities. Guided by "the best and the brightest" of the era and a distrust of bureaucratic procedures, Kennedy has urged all Americans to come together to eradicate poverty, eliminate bigotry, and extend their country's reach toward the stars. On the domestic front, liberalism under Kennedy has become defined by policies seeking to end American stagnation—policies that include tax cuts, minimum wage hikes, and aggressive attacks against segregation. Internationally, liberalism has become defined by a robust foreign policy—combining both an aggressive military posture toward Japan and Germany with a renewed focus on development in other states across Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Yet, it remains unclear whether this latest manifestation of liberalism will withstand the struggles America faces abroad and at home. Despite all the glittering images and inspiring speeches, America still faces enormous social and political challenges. There is the constant danger that the shining ideal that Kennedy puts forth will fall into the morass and be overwhelmed by extremists on the left and right.


Lyndon B. Johnson's liberalism holds that America, despite its stagnation, is the most prosperous nation in the world and possesses resources that make it possible to end all manmade maladies. Herein lies the continuation of the Democratic Party's generational revolution, to build a government strong enough to care for the people yet so free and accessible to ensure domestic tranquility. With the power of this almighty government, poverty, hunger, illness, and perhaps even prejudice itself can be eliminated, sweeping actions limited only by the President's ability to pass legislation and the bureaucracy's capacity to enforce such policies. Lyndon Johnson's liberalism is a relentless pursuit of righting wrongs, fighting at home to expand medical and retirement benefits, codify transformative civil rights laws, and eliminate poverty once and for all.

Yet, it remains unclear whether this latest manifestation of liberalism will withstand the struggles America faces abroad and at home. Despite continued efforts toward national perfection, America still faces enormous social and political challenges. Should President Johnson fail to uphold his commitments at home, to execute his continuation of the New Deal, or to uphold American commitments with allies abroad, the resulting threat could jeopardize the future of American liberalism and its hard-fought benefits.


Liberalism, according to Philip A. Hart, is a force for changing the world. Yet, a man like Philip Hart has no ambition to champion New Deal-style executive expansion. Instead, he opts to continue his party's generational revolution with the cooperation of local governments, using state bureaucracies to circulate and entrench good, humanist policies. This suite of policy programs aims to revitalize cities, build infrastructure, attack crime, and create unprecedented opportunities for consumers in both the market and their workplace. Abroad, Hart's liberalism assumes a pragmatic face by softening attitudes towards Japan, seeking to de-escalate the Cold War in the Pacific in favor of further isolating the German Reich.

Yet, it remains unclear whether this latest manifestation of liberalism will withstand the struggles America faces abroad and at home. Despite all the glimmering hope and human conversations, America still faces enormous social and political challenges. Politics of equity, if not executed carefully, can generate backlash, in turn isolating and polarizing sections of the country before the later failure of policy. For those citizens who are neither city-dwellers nor minorities, an overzealous effort to help urban finance might contribute to a Nationalist backlash.


Liberalism under Chep Morrison is about preserving this continuity. Thrust into the spotlight by accident of history, deLesseps Story Morrison finds himself desperately trying to tie together the various strands of a party ambivalent to him at best. He seeks to draw upon the public memory of the Hart Administration as well as his own popular leadership of Louisiana to keep his political allies committed to their urban constituencies, to ensure that Hart's urban projects do not fail but might remake America into a new, modern nation. In this way, Chep's America is one with precious few new ideas—he is not an uplifting beacon like Kennedy or an experienced political manipulator like LBJ—but if he can ensure that progress is not rolled back domestically or internationally, the President hopes others can count his Administration a success.


Jeane Kirkpatrick's liberalism is about strength. On the domestic front, strength is about giving people the power they need to seize control of their destinies—bolstering unions, eliminating bias from the workplace, and enriching everyday families. It is also about reinforcing America's institutions by marginalizing those cynical, unpatriotic, and "able-bodied but lazy" persons who make up America's extremes. In foreign affairs, liberalism is about aggressively expanding democracy through the assertion of American military power. Kirkpatrick's liberalism would see the military and intelligence establishment unshackled in its effort to end totalitarianism everywhere. There will be no peaceful coexistence. America will assert its interests all across the globe—without apology.

Yet, it remains unclear whether this latest manifestation of liberalism will withstand the struggles America faces abroad and at home. There is a sense among the mainstream that this liberalism has replaced the welfare-oriented policies of previous administrations with policies of radical self-interest. The disaffected fringes, meanwhile, see Kirkpatrick as a confirmation of what they always knew about the American government's real imperialistic designs. If not carefully managed, liberalism could find itself delegitimized at home and abroad.

Liberal Conservatism[edit | edit source]

In a world filled to the brim with radicals, extremists, and vagabonds, the rational man is perhaps humanity's greatest hope. It takes discipline and a strong will to maintain the values of democracy, that brilliant idea forged on the hills of Athens, and the Liberal Conservatives are those holding the thin line that is keeping the torch of liberty lit.

Unlike pure conservatives, these people are more open to social change in their society, as long as it can be tempered and controlled by the powers that be, adapting their position as needed for governance. They generally support free market economics, although individual practitioners might differ on the matter of state intervention in the economy as a means to do good for society and limit corporate power. Whether or not these moderates will be able to survive the rest of the 20th century, with all of its absolutist violence and totalitarianism, remains up in the air.

Market Liberalism[edit | edit source]

Market Liberalism was, at one point and time, the largest strain of political thought in the West. Whether it was the Liberals of Great Britain, the Republicans in America, or the Radical Liberals of France, it dominated the West under its most three most famous policies: free speech, free election, and free trade.

Now, though, Market Liberalism has to contend with alternate ideas from both the right and the left, believing that it has been unwilling to deal with the human cost of its ideas. But its adherents are still many, especially in the Americas. Believing in a government that does not intervene in the economy or in the private space of its citizens, Market Liberalism seeks to create a society that ensures that every man can become successful, with a little hard work and ingenuity.

Practically, this means lowering taxes, eliminating trade barriers, and ensuring an 'equal playing field' for everyone. Sometimes, however, Market Liberals are willing to intervene in the economy for the sake of increasing economic development, such as subsidies and tax credits. Believing in the sanctity of the free market, Market Liberals believe that a 'rising tide can raise all ships', regardless of whether those ships are poor or rich.

Christian Democracy[edit | edit source]

Christian Democracy is founded on two pillars of thought: that it's the duty of those that believe in God to help the people, and that democracy is the best form of government there is. Beyond this foundation, there is next to no set standard of what is Christian Democracy, and there are many beliefs and ideas on how to go about it.

Some parties are opposed to both of the "materialist" ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism, while others support a social market economy that supports free market economics with a strong government supported safety net and regulations. Other parties claiming to be Christain Democratic can be seen as either conservative or liberal depending on the country and history. Or they can straddle the line: maybe they are center-left on economic issues and civil rights, while center-right on cultural, social and moral issues.

Christian Democracy can be almost any denomination, though most are Catholic or some variation of Protestantism. While the European home of the original Christian Democratic movements such as Germany, Austria and Belgium are now held in the tight grasp of anti-religious Nazism, there is a flourishing Christian Democratic movement in Latin America, and hope that someday a democracy that is humble, moral and blessed will return to Europe.

Big Tent[edit | edit source]

Big Tents are, at the core, places where many are welcome. Fit to fill itself with a diverse array of personalities and ideologies, many wonder how these political smorgasbords manage to stay together. The answer is actually quite simple.

Pragmatism. The key value behind Big Tent parties and philosophy. Without the Big Tent, the many disparate groups under its roof recognize they would be aimless, with no power. The Big Tent gives them a power, one larger than the sum of their parts. Along with that, Big Tent parties and coalitions require a goal to unify their assorted ideologies. In the current political climate, this often comes as a resistance to fascism. United by a (usually) liberal desire to retain their vision of democracy, politicians and people all over the Overton window come together to preserve what they love. No matter how tense arguing goes on under the tent, everyone realizes how dangerous the outside is.

Moderate Technocracy[edit | edit source]

Technocracy can be distilled into a single idea: that those citizens most qualified, having the strongest experience, learning, and knowledge in the scholarly fields most pertinent to the welfare of the state, should be those to run the affairs of state. A technocrat's idea of the ideal rulers for the nation are problem-solvers: researchers, theoreticians, scientists, businessmen, and engineers.

Moderate technocracy, like liberal technocracy, superimposes the technocratic concept on a democratic polity. Both strains of technocrats will very much prefer to hire practical people from outside the political-administrative class to help them in their work of ruling the State, and will treat politicians and party cadres with no small amount of suspicion.

However, unlike their more strident counterparts, moderate technocrats are content to work within the established political system. Pragmatism preserves the State, dogmatism destroys it. Better to fix the symptoms of particracy's excesses, making it as nontoxic as possible, rather than risk ruin by attempting to attack the entire problem as a more dogmatic technocrat might.

Oligarchic Liberalism[edit | edit source]

The feudal aristocrats of the past centuries have been befallen with tragedy after tragedy as the embers of revolutionary potential erupted into overwhelming fires, bringing the lords to heel and their byzantine system of oppression down with them. Atop the burnt carcass of the ancient regime would the torch of liberalism be crafted, but with the power gap left by the old establishment remaining empty, a new class would rise to occupy it: the Oligarchs.

The grand liberal tradition proclaims the inalienable, universal rights of man and establishes a democratic regime. A state where power belongs to the people through the form of an electoral mandate granted by them to their representatives. This may seem incompatible with the concept of oligarchic rule at first, yet should one look beyond the horizons of strict ideological confines one will arrive at the point where contradictions melt away and unity is crafted. Oligarchs with their wealth and affluence may be out of touch with the ferocious masses, yet by positioning themselves as the vanguard of the popular interests, these same oligarchs are able to place themselves at the head of the democratic process.

Power belongs to the people and power originates from the people, however, the people cannot truly rule for themselves. Fortunately for them, the ever-benevolent oligarchs will carry the torch of liberalism in their name and rule as their democratic representatives.

Islamic Modernism[edit | edit source]

"I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam."

Arising as an Islamic reaction to Europe's colonial and imperial onslaught in the 19th century, the doctrine of Islamic Modernism was conceived of as the ideological brainchild of those among the Islamic Ulema and Clergy, from Mohammed Abduh, Jamal el-Din al-Afghani to Ali Abdel Raziq and Rifa'at al-Tahtawi, who recognised the vital necessity for reform within the Muslim Ummah as a counter-guard to the encroaching Western powers.

Seeking neither to stick their heads in the ground and isolate themselves from modernity nor to abandon all their customs, beliefs and traditions to follow all that the westerners preach mindlessly, Islamic Modernism aims to adapt the Enlightenment ideals that have propelled the West to prosperity with the traditional Islamic ideals and doctrine that had lifted the Near East out of ignorance and into a social, cultural and economic golden age.

In sharp contrast to the socialistic, secular nationalism that is finding prominence among young anti-colonial revolutionaries and the rival Salafist school of thought that is being propagated by the Saudis of Nejd, the Modernists seek to discard both notions of atheistic secularism and the already-established medieval-era interpretations of Sharia that remain dominant among the scholars and clerics of today, instead, they strive to re-examine and reinterpret the doctrine of Sharia from a modern lens.

The Modernists push for the destruction of feudal entities and the construction of modern, civic and democratic states that operate on the framework of a "Moral Economy" that empowers the meek and provides for the deprived. The only way forwards for a Muslim Ummah free of colonial chains is under a harmonic society that equally dignifies all of its subjects regardless of their sex, faith, race or class.

Conservatism[edit | edit source]

Be it a political ideology or cultural philosophy, Conservatism, as it has been defined, orientates itself around the ideals of traditionalism and a protection dedicated to preserving and refining societal and cultural institutions according to accepted societal norms, and while it traditionally has favored the right-wing of the political theater, it is not inherently opposed to working with more liberal elements in a given forum, though these are somewhat rare. Conservatives often endorse laissez-faire free market economics as a matter of course, and generally prefer fiscal austerity over increased government spending, but this is not always strictly the case.

In light of the collapse of what once been known as the great Liberal Democracies of France and Britain to the Fascist menace in Europe, Conservatism has seen a resurgence in the parts of the world hitherto untouched by Fascism, casting itself as the last line of defense for democracy against an increasingly totalitarian world.

While many conservative-leaning politicians and governments are not against reform, many often find themselves at odds with their more liberal and progressive contemporaries in the public arena.

Agrarianism[edit | edit source]

From Jeffersonian Democracy to the Mexican revolutionaries of Emiliano Zapata, the notion of "Farmers First" is a concept nearly as old as the medium of Democracy itself, and there remain even today countless parties dedicated to the cause of elevating the status of farmers in any one given society, though they all hold the priority of putting the farmer first and foremost in the function of the state, alongside strong traditional values.

The typical Agrarian state features relatively simple and similar policies: promotion of subsistence farming, greater community involvement in the agricultural development of the state, and an overall prioritization of the farmer to a place of national importance, just as things had been at the precipice of humanity's birth.

Paternalistic Conservatism[edit | edit source]

Some societies aspire to be egalitarian, ensuring that everyone has an equal voice to affect the world around them. Others aspire for hierarchy, hoping to ensure that each social class recognizes their place in society and works hard to fulfill the duties of their position. Paternalistic conservatism represents the latter of these types.

Preoccupied with concepts such as duty and honor, paternalistic conservatism argues that the privileged members of a society are the most capable of caring for the poor and destitute around them. They encourage humanitarianism and private charity, viewing elites as benevolent actors able to ensure that those below them have access to economic opportunity. Although they support social safety nets and other forms of government intervention to guarantee good working conditions for the poor, they strongly oppose anything resembling a command economy. Instead, they aspire to use elites to balance the interests of the individual and the state, hoping that it promotes stability for all.

Islamic Conservatism[edit | edit source]

"The Muslim does not consider his religion in full being unless there exists a strong, independent Islamic state capable of enforcing the sharia without opposition or foreign control."

Allah chose Muhammed, Peace Be Upon Him, to be his prophet and so through him, Allah blessed the people of Earth with the Quran, an utterly perfect scripture of immutable divinity, and within it was a treasure-trove of knowledge and virtue. In the Quran and with the aid of the Prophet's Hadith, a noble system of law was outlined that would replace all earthly laws: the Sharia.

To reject Sharia is to reject the words of Allah, however, the Sharia was always a system of laws and not a form of government. Due to this, many have instead rejected the outdated, autocratic forms of Government that the nobles and the clerics often uphold, preferring a purely Islamic form of democracy that rejects both Western encroachment and traditional autocracies.

Championing the people's right to govern themselves, while maintaining a strong allegiance to the principles of Islamic Sharia and its code of Jurisprudence, the "Islamic Conservatives" desire to defend long–held Islamic traditions from the rotten Kufr that they see Liberals, Modernists, Westerners and Socialists as propagating.

For the Islamic Conservatives, only when united as one, stable, democratic and prosperous society under the rule of Allah's Laws, can the Islamic Ummah crush the hand of imperialism and return to the forefront of the World.

Populist Conservatism[edit | edit source]

There is a stereotype about conservatives. The stodgy, stubborn, unwavering moralist is an everpresent figure in the minds of all sorts of people- both on the far left and the far right. But there is another prominent type of conservative, and in many ways they are the exact opposite of the common sentiment. Rowdy, tenacious, and fiercely pragmatic in their crusade to maintain the spirit of their nation and people, the Conservative Populist is a fiery figure on par with any socialist rabblerouser or fascist provocateur.

Often, these brands of conservatives are not only not averse to passing reform, but they're even fully on board with passing certain reforms that help the common man in direct ways. These reforms, however, are always geared towards curtailing radical sentiment and ensuring the survival of the status quo in whatever form they can manage.

As such, Conservative Populists tend to do the best among rural populations, where both a respect for tradition but also understanding and reacting to the day-to-day struggles of the everyman in a timely and competent fashion is respected equally. When properly mobilized, this bloc of support can be one of the strongest in most nations, and Populists of this bent are often derided as demagogues and hellraisers for exactly this reason.

Revisionist Zionism[edit | edit source]

The logical counterbalance to Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism is a center-to-far-right ideology, made to counterbalance the, in its eyes, 'Bolshevization' of Theodor Herzl's Zionist dream. Revisionist Zionism seeks to 'revise' the Zionism of the political establishment - specifically, in terms of the territory of the future state of Israel. While many Labor Zionists compromise with a two-state solution, or a state 'merely' spanning the borders of Palestine, Revisionist Zionists champion a larger state, with even moderates seeking the annexation of Transjordan, with some few extremists even arguing for the Biblical borders of Israel - that is, the Nile to the Euphrates.

Revisionist Zionism is, for the mainstream, still Democratic, however, with its founder, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, subscribing to British Liberalism, and the idea that, while Israel is, of course, a Jewish State, Arabs should be free to assimilate and participate in its electoral systems. The feasibility and morality of this, however, is hotly debated by Zionists both Revisionist and Labor.

Christian Conservatism[edit | edit source]

"Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it."

If you ponder humanity's long history, the separation between the Church and the State is relatively new. Even if the "faithless demagogues" would like to deny all they desire, the values put in the bible, the tenets of Christianity, the maintenance of the idealized, monolithic society which is the ideal many western politicians lean towards, even if they deny it. There are those that deny and those that embrace it, and it's this very party that Christian Conservatism finds its strength.

Prevalent mostly in highly religious regions, you'll find those that put the cross on the same value highly within regions where the church has a deep, historical presence, as well as a convenient push against the tides of "modernity", that dare tear away all values people hold dear and steal from them a place in Heaven; from the "Bible Belt" of the USA to the "Coronels" of Brazil, Christian Conservatism sees change as cautious at best, and dangerous at worst, a centralist status-quo position that makes it appealing to moderate right-wing politicians, that can conveniently claim their enemies to be enemies of God and deserving of scorn and damnation.

Progressive Conservatism[edit | edit source]

Conservatism isn't a unified banner. It is the bedrock to which sprout multiple beliefs only loosely united as opposition or adversaries to the hundred other political ideologies all over the world; Thus, it shouldn't come as a surprise that an ideology can evolve to embrace some values that other conservatives would think as "too much".

Progressive Conservatism is the brainchild of those seeking a compromise, or perhaps a means to ease their mind and that of their voters: Welfare, Equal Rights, measured Economic Interventionism, all measures that alleviate societal woes without risking the bedrock that unites the country and its traditions, and hopefully guide their society, and voters, towards a healthier ecosystem without the drastic changes that they still so abhor.

Free-Market Conservatism[edit | edit source]

By definition, the Free Market proposes the minimum amount of government intervention upon the affairs of the state itself, believing that competition and society self-regulate themselves upon its best possible state, as long as the state's hand is to oversee, not to steer. However, the social aspect is where the classical Free Market diverges from its conservative relative.

Free Market Conservatism are those that propose lowering tariffs as much as they preach the value of the traditional family; those that propose lowering bureaucracies, as long as they don't put "troublemakers" in positions the state would dislike; cutting regulations in the economy while putting extra tariffs upon countries not "aligned" with their moral compass, most of the time at least.

For them, the freedom so proposed by the free market begins in the economy; for the rest, the conservatives clearly know better.

Silent Conservatism[edit | edit source]

In a world of unchecked radicalism and tyranny, America requires a steady, conservative hand to steer the nation from destruction. To this end, Richard Milhous Nixon has developed a unique strand of American conservatism in order to ensure the prosperity and stability of the United States in the face of constant internal and external threats. Taking its name from Nixon's appeal to the so-called "Silent Majority" in American politics, Silent Conservatism combines the interests of pro-Republican Party business groups and culturally conservative voters in the Democratic Party to create a cautious, pragmatic approach to solving the economic and social issues within the country.

While primarily conservative in nature, Silent Conservatism seeks to create a moderate alternative to what it sees as naïve liberals and heartless reactionaries who threaten domestic politics. Rejecting radicalism from both sides of the political spectrum, its proponents instead attempt to appeal to the vast sea of voting blocs in America through broadly populist rhetoric, flexible reforms, and a paternalistic attitude towards the nation's citizens.

Owing in large part to Nixon's own pragmatism, Silent Conservatism often hesitates in taking any strong positions on political issues, instead preferring to stick to a middle-ground that largely follows the majority opinion on any particular subject. While mostly successful so far in ensuring the stability of the deeply divided Republican-Democratic Coalition, time will tell whether or not Nixon's approach to politics can continue to walk the tightrope between the increasingly divisive issues that plague the nation.

Natural Conservatism[edit | edit source]

America has always been defined by its suspicion toward large, centralized power. Thomas Jefferson was concerned that a strong government would undermine the rights of the individual. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote extensively on the need for a federal system that could limit and control the abuses of government. Even John Adams believed that "Whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by nature."

Natural Conservatism is just the latest manifestation of this current. With a political center in the Sunbelt, Natural Conservatives are a group of conservatives deeply concerned by the excesses of the modern welfare state and the ability of it to intrude upon their communities. Its adherents believe that the "natural" organization of humanity is one where every town, county, and state should be free to determine what works best for them with minimal outside interference. They believe that the role of the federal government should not be to enforce standards or manipulate the fabric of society but to be as unobtrusive as possible, visible only insofar as is necessary to guarantee individual rights and allow business to thrive.

Of course, the kinds of societies that Natural Conservatives hope for vary wildly. While some individuals in the Chamber of Commerce see it as essential for free speech and enterprise, others in the Deep South would use it to promote concepts that might be seen as unfair or biased against minorities. Only time can tell how these various groups will co-exist and whether their opposition to outside influence might have ramifications yet to be understood.

Modern Conservatism[edit | edit source]

The modern world is rife with problems. For many across the United States, they can seem entrenched, unresolvable. Millions find themselves discouraged about the injustices around them and the apparent inability of the liberal democratic order to solve them. In response, some have turned toward new, modern methods promoted by the nation's experts. They have turned toward Modern Conservatism.

Championed by moderate Republican figures such as George Romney, Modern Conservatism holds that the expertise of "leading citizens" is what is necessary to solve the political crises of today. In this way, modern conservatives believe strongly in both the virtue of volunteerism and frequently engage with allies at think tanks, nonprofits, and corporations across the country. Adherents are more likely to talk about "evidence-based policymaking" than principles or tests for ideological purity. They preference scientifically derived, consensus-oriented solutions over gut partisanship—embracing common-sense policies like flat-rate income taxes and fair and desegregated housing.

While popular among the managerial class, it is not an ideology that inspires passionate rhetoric or thundering defenses. Rather, Modern Conservatism is often seen as corporate, technocratic, and paternalistic in a way that can be off-putting to liberals and rural conservatives alike. Only time can tell whether this new movement can win over its skeptics or whether it will deepen the public's alienation.

Prairie Populism[edit | edit source]

Born out of the traditions and physical realities of the frontier, Prairie Populism is a political creed that holds to the wisdom and honesty of the common man in his struggle against the immoral corruption of the elites. Prairie Populists laud the virtuosity of everyday men and stand alongside them to decry the supposed wickedness and dishonour of the powerful, laying the blame for the ills of society and the failures of government on those who have more money and connections than they do sense and decency. For Prairie Populists, it is the mistakes of a self-interested elite—disconnected and isolated from the struggles of the everyday, ordinary men and women of the country—that caused the problems that befall society; therefore, it is only by the removal of that elite from power that those problems can be solved.

Tending towards a practical, 'common sense' approach to governance, political leaders of this stripe exercise flexibility in their policy-making, adhering first and foremost to what the people themselves seem to want. Prairie Populists can advocate moderate or even progressive solutions to economic and social problems, but always with an underlying moralism and esteem for tradition that is hostile to radical or revolutionary changes in the structure of society. Steadfastly supportive of democracy and of the conceptual idea of state institutions, it is only the kleptocrats and the ne'er-do-wells defiling the halls of power, and not those halls themselves, that the Prairie Populist seeks to tear down. Theirs is the farmer's and the worker's cries of "throw the bums out!", and for those alienated from their government and feeling cheated and debased by their politicians, it can be a powerful cry indeed.

Goken Conservatism[edit | edit source]

Japan's unique political environment is characterized by many unspoken norms, and Goken Conservatism, or Constitution Protection Conservatism, was born during the Goken Undo in the 1910s. In short, it is an ideology that attempts to build representative democracy while abiding by all the norms. For example, the term "democracy," which loosely translates into "Popular Sovereignty" in Japanese, is a taboo since it challenges the Imperial Sovereign. "Constitution protection" is however a perfectly acceptable alternative as it avoids the issue of sovereignty altogether and instead focuses on protecting people's rights, sanctioned by the Emperor and outlined in the Imperial Constitution, from malignant actors like Meiji oligarchs or the Toseiha officers in the past.

Needless to say, as a form of conservatism, Goken Conservatism embraces many traditional values such as patriotism, traditional gender roles, and disdain for Western Democracy. At the same time, the adherents of Goken Conservatism also seek to ensure national policies reflect the popular will via electoral politics while attempting to interpret the popular will in accordance with Imperial Sovereignty. Although the narrative of Goken Conservatism makes the system particularly vulnerable to Meiji Era constitutional loopholes designed to empower the Emperor, it is nevertheless a genuine attempt to return to Japan's interrupted democratic experiments in the Taisho Era after thirty years of totalitarianism.

Liberal Corporatism[edit | edit source]

Amidst what can only be described as a terminal decline of classical liberalism, which emanated from the likes of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo less than a century before, lies fundamental questions concerning the future of european capitalism. As Nazi banners - carrying before them the unfeeling, Bismarckian tentacles of collectivism - paraded through the streets of Paris, Moscow and London, along with them came the permanent fragmentation of a unified liberal philosophy. What tools are left to those few who still believe in the capitalist system is now naught but the rigid authoritarian institutions that merely further reinforce the dominant Prussian "family state".

Finding roots amongst some of the early compromises between governments and the trade unions of early 20th-century Scandinavia, Liberal Corporatism represents a uniquely continental model of capitalist development. In many ways, the development of a Liberal Corporatist order has emerged spontaneously, and only in cases where the power of governments to resolve the "co-determination" issue can overcome vested labor and capital interests. At the centre of the Liberal Corporatist model is a perfectly organised method of enterprise bargaining. Democracy becomes a question of efficiency. Social politics mean organization and increased productivity. Labor disputes became 'non-political.' The more the strength of labor unions to act as industrial cartels became apparent, the more attractive the idea of participation in a liberal market becomes in kind.

The cries of central planning shall ring hollow for all to see as the socialists of old find their ideas increasingly left in the dust of rapid economic success. The radical formula for success disseminating from the writings of the Acton-Tocqueville Society may perhaps find suitable adherents across Europe's "New" capitalists. The state shall be the arbiter of the free market, with all of its dynamism, equality and vast riches. However, whether or not this so-called "Neo-liberalism" can navigate the precarious balancing act of citizens' welfare remains yet to be seen.

Paternalism[edit | edit source]

The political philosophy broadly falling under the denomination of Paternalism has existed as the principal ethic for myriad forms of governments throughout millennia, from Despots, to Monarchs, to Emperors. The ideology behind paternalistic forms of government paints the nascent rise in liberal political thought as a cause for injustices and instability against age-old cultural and political norms, institutions, and truths, and seeks to counter said influence through the restriction of rights and liberties, either temporarily or perhaps even permanently, as a means of preserving the nation, its society and culture for a bright and better future, likening the role of the State towards the welfare of its citizens as like the guidance from a parent to their children. The ideological similarities to the numerous autocratic regimes currently dominating Europe and Asia in this regard are hard to ignore; both liberal and conservative forms of democracy generally abhor the dictatorialism perceived in Paternalistic forms of government, believing it to be little else but an embryonic form of emerging Fascist political thought, or a thinly veiled imitation of it. That said, few within Paternalistic societies are likely to care for the opinions of their neighbors, and will often pose stiff resistance, politically or militarily, to any attempt, internal or external, to supersede that.

National Conservatism[edit | edit source]

The past twenty years of human civilization have shown, above all else, that might truly makes right. It is the strong nations, the nations which are united, that have the best chances of winning out on the world stage. Anyone who wishes to replicate their success should also replicate their rigid sense of nationhood, this is where National Conservatism comes from.

A deeply right-wing ideal, national conservatives believe that the unity of their particular nation is paramount to all other social goals and that this unity is maintained by upholding the nation's unique traditions. The state becomes an organ by which this national cohesion is strengthened, and although many national conservatives support laissez-faire economic policies; others believe that the state should provide for the people in a paternalistic capacity. Many of these conservatives emphasize the differences between their ideas and those of fascists, many more are perfectly willing to collaborate with fascists when there is an alignment of goals. Whether or not the ideology can survive in a world dominated by Fascism is yet to be seen.

Social Nationalism[edit | edit source]

One of the most egregious crimes that man can commit against his fellow man is that of colonialism. To colonize a land, a people, and a country is to deny them of their right to a proper existence. It turns the nations that fall victim to it into husks of what they could have become, and it turns its perpetrators into glutenous parasites, incapable of proper social function. This state of affairs can be seen clearly all over the world, whether it be with the Americans and Europeans in Africa or with the Japanese in Asia.

No crime can go unanswered for too long, however, and the answer to the brutality of colonialism is the theory of Social Nationalism. It, unlike the nationalism that birthed the Reich and the Shōwa, posits that the colonized can become nationally cohesive units through the recognition of a shared struggle. Social nationalists do not argue that their people should unite on the grounds of their ethnic or cultural superiority, instead, they must unite to defeat their oppressors. Although social nationalism can use any economic system to achieve its aims, most of its proponents also struggle for the establishment of at least some form of socialism in their lands. In the first decade following the war, social nationalism found itself crushed under the weight of German bombs and Japanese military exercises, but the world is changing now. If all the cards are played right, they might just be able to win.

Controlled Democracy[edit | edit source]

In our modern era, there is no greater achievement in the world than democracy. The ability for the citizens of the nation to have a say in how their government is to be run and managed is one of the greatest achievements in the past few centuries. Elections provide accountability through the ballot box and allow the marketplace of ideas to weed out the bad ideas. But the largest problem with democracy is the fact that sometimes the people don't know what they want, or what is best for them. In fact it's very likely that voters, blinded by impossible promises or destructive slogans, can actually destroy the nation by electing unqualified politicians. Many a Fascist or Communist dictatorship was established in democracies with lies and vague promises, and look how that has turned out!

Controlled Democracy resolves this flaw by preventing such radical and destructive thoughts from entering the system with the use of heavy government propaganda to tell the people what is best for them, and ensuring that all the political parties in the nation agree with and support the long term strategies of the nation. Free and fair elections are still held, but the results will never challenge the overarching goals of the nation, no matter what that goal is. There is opposition to Controlled Democracy, namely that elections are seen as a sham, and it's basically an authoritarian system in the disguise of a democracy. Of course, the people who say such things are those that would undermine and destroy the nation, so why should we care what they say?

Stratocracy[edit | edit source]

Stratocracy is a form of government centered around military service. Military forces control all branches of government, but unlike other military governments, it is not entirely undemocratic. Both active service members and honorably discharged veterans have a voice in the direction of the government, and all that one has to do to earn political power is serve loyalty. Rather than involving a suspension of the constitution, stratocracies often have constitutions in-laws explicitly supporting the military's role in society.

Though stratocracies do not by nature have to be oligarchic or autocratic, they often end up as such due to the necessity of military rule. Stratocracies that do not take care to maintain their meritocratic characteristics usually become regular military dictatorships, and the civilian government and armed forces separate, not always peacefully. This fusion of military and democratic governance is exceedingly rare and comes about through a combination of meritocratic beliefs and sustained military pressure, such as through war or domestic conflict. This rarity should not be mistaken for weakness, however. A stratocracy is a legion, and a legion conquers.

Oligarchy[edit | edit source]

Oligarchy, derived from the greek words oligos, few, and arkho, to rule, represents a government where power rests in the hands of a small group of people. They may be separated from the general population because of their wealth, education, military or political control, or in some cases, a minority group that maintains control of the majority. This form of government can be backed up by law, either under the guise of an emergency or transitional government or through illegal or secret means. Although some oligarchal states pass power down hereditarily, this does not ring true for every oligarchy government.

An oligarchy can arise from many different circumstances. For instance, over time power can become concentrated in the hands of the elite through continued enfranchisement of the upper class, until the wealthy dominate all aspects of government, either overtly or covertly. Or perhaps after a coup d'etat, a victorious general works to entrench the power of his clique or the military in general over the population. Although one oligarchy state can be vastly different from the other in terms of what group is in power, they all usually exert heavy control over the populace. Civil liberties are usually limited, and voting at any level is usually restricted. However, exceptions can be found in states where some form of sham democracy, whether a sham by intention or by effect, exists. These sham elections may allow for a veneer of democracy, but ultimately the average person has no control over their leaders.

Solidarism[edit | edit source]

Solidarism is the ideology promoted by the Vyatka-based National Union of Solidarists. Violently rejecting communism, it aims to provide a twentieth-century basis for dealing with present-day issues, rejecting a purely materialistic approach to socio-economic and political problems, and promoting inter-class solidarity, brotherhood, Christian tolerance, and charity. They also claim to promote democratic participation in government (with or without a Russian monarch), individualism, and civil liberties. Their end goal is to bring about a Second Revolution that is "neither left nor right but at the front" and will rebirth Russia without returning to Bolshevik or Tsarist errors.

Its critics, on the other hand, argue that it displays a predisposition towards a corporatist organization of society and an overfriendliness to the prospect of a "temporary" dictatorship to bring about their desired "moral and spiritual regeneration". To these critics, Solidarism is alarmingly similar to Italian fascism, as well as the corporatism practiced in Salazarist Portugal and the former State of Austria pre-Anschluss.

Military Mandate[edit | edit source]

Military Mandates are regimes where the nation is governed by a foreign military power, and almost always led by a high-ranking military officer. Almost always the result of invasion or annexation, military mandates tend to be authoritarian and preoccupied with eliminating local resistance. Military mandates can be temporary structures, designed merely to protect a strategic region, facilitate annexation, or help smoothly transition into a new regime.

With complete control of government given to a foreign military power, there tends to be little civilian representation in these regimes, and they often are dominated by that foreign government's interests and ambitions. These military mandates rarely, if ever, have any true independence. If their masters demand they endanger the stability of their regime in order to comply with orders, they will follow those orders. If their masters demand they dismantle their regime and return home, they'll do exactly that. Regardless of their support amongst the local populace, military mandates live and die by the competency of their soldiers and officers. An incompetent regime quickly becomes a massive resource drain for the occupying power, quickly becoming counterproductive to their initial purpose. However, even a powerful military can crumble if they fail to adapt to their conditions and the demands of the people. With the increasing prominence of asymmetrical warfare, and the current status quo crumbling, many of these military mandates must prepare for the coming storm.

Dixiecrat[edit | edit source]

A Dixiecrat (a portmanteau of 'Democrat' and 'Dixie') is a complex description of the various factions and figures in the American South who were originally members of the Democratic Party, but who, for one reason or another, have fled to the National Progressive Pact as its right-most wing. Originally coined by a journalist during the 1948 Presidential campaign to describe Richard Russell of Georgia's States Rights Party, it has now become the go-to term for the NPP's southern wing.

Divided and highly fragmented on economic grounds, with many Dixiecrats adhering to either rural populist traditions of figures like Huey Long, Thomas Watson, and Benjamin Tillman, or traditional liberal or conservative economics, they are united in their dislike of civil rights and federal intervention in 'home affairs'. Depending on the candidate, the Dixiecrat base can range from white workers, southern industrialists, and business owners, social conservatives, and the traditional agricultural barons that continued to control the South a century after the Civil War. Many are haunted by the stories of post-Civil War Reconstruction, and are intent on using their collective power on all levels of government to maintain segregation -- one way, or another.

Corporate Paternalism[edit | edit source]

Even within politics that operate for the benefit of its investors and corporate mavens above all else, most corporatocracies maintain the form of a nation-state for external convenience, its successes built on the back of its people - its 'employees,' bereft of a voice in the machine that profits from their labor.

An emerging heterodox school of thought among the corporate elite challenges the notion that capital should solely be an exploitative enterprise in opposition to labor. Proponents emphasize the benefits of stability over profit provided by reflecting the demands of labor in business decisions to a 'reasonable' extent, arguing that a content workforce is more productive in the longer term. While this model of industrial relations is not uncommon in capitalist societies, the unique circumstances of a polity centered around corporations inevitably means this economic theory carries significant political implications. The advocates of this theory envision a more expansive role of the government in providing public services to the nascent 'citizen-employee', in exchange for their labor and a continued acceptance of corporations and market forces dominating public life.

Social Credit[edit | edit source]

Social Credit is an economic theory developed by British engineer Clifford H. Douglas after World War I. In the 1920s, he argued that economic depressions were caused by arbitrary discrepancies between the market prices of goods, the costs of their production, and the wages of those who produced them. Essentially, he noticed that businesses were arbitrarily selling the prices of their manufactured goods far higher than their workers could actually afford. Because of this artificial scarcity created in the pursuit of profit, the workers' lives suffered and economies were hindered by lower consumer spending. To remedy this, Douglas called for governments to distribute money, or "social credit", to consumers in order to close the gap between production and their own purchasing power so that consumer spending could rise and drive economic growth.

In Canada, Douglas's economic theories have been synergized with Christian fundamentalism to form a right-wing populist political program. The Social Credit Party worships individualism and private enterprise almost as much as they worship Christ. They call for a vast expansion of the money supply by providing direct lines of credit to consumers and producers and decrying the national debt as a tool used by international bankers to loot the economy for profit. While championing free markets, they are far less keen on free moral choice. They are rabid opponents of counter-culture movements and believe their conservative interpretation of Christianity should be upheld as Canada's official religion. Some members of the party even praise the economic policies of the Iberian Caudillos and the late Duce of Italy, and progressive Canadians dread discovering where Social Credit will take their nation.

Semi-Constitutional Monarchy[edit | edit source]

As absolute monarchism has fallen out of favor over the world in favor of a constitutional equivalent, a different alternative has also manifested. While in most constitutional monarchies, the power has been delegated to officials, executive, and legislative state organs, this is not the case in a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.

Within this system, checks on their power are few, and often symbolic in practice, leaving monarchs who wield significant power over the government, be it executive or legislative. Semi-Constitutional Monarchies have often been driven by monarchs themselves, who wish to moderate their image, and simultaneously not give up their existing power. While not as unrestrained as an absolute monarchy, there ultimately remains little in place that can effectively challenge them, leaving nations at the mercy of the monarchy they have no means of removing.

Dominant Party Democracy[edit | edit source]

Sometimes, a political party is not just a political party.

Often, in periods of great upheaval or change, political and otherwise, a party will emerge alongside it, representing the new way of doing things without any true competition as the country changes dramatically. It's possible, in times like these, that the political party can travel with the tide and emerge with a near-monopoly on power, even in systems that include democratic systems and traditions. It is not that there is a lack of other parties or ideologies, but that it has been difficult or impossible for them to gain enough in the way of traction or foundations to challenge the establishment. As a result, any meaningful pluralism of politics and ideas takes place within the party's halls itself, rather than necessarily by way of democratic discourse, a fact that only serves to make ending the system all the less likely. This entrenchment and institutionalization of power is often aided by the very foundation and democratic structure of a country, which is shaped to favor it. But these institutional methods act as a mere safeguard, in case the primary means of maintaining control falls through. The truly key component of dominant-party systems is that the power is not something that must be maintained by micromanagement of the political situation, devious schemes to subvert the will of the people, or by sheer force of political or military might. The party itself has become such a fundamental fact of life in the politics and everyday lives of the people, that most of them would never dream of voting for anyone else. Whether driven by true belief or cynical acceptance, many have simply embraced the party's sheer pervasiveness as a fact of life, unchanging and unassailable.

Peronism[edit | edit source]

As the world's attention was occupied with the fall of London and Moscow, Colonel Juan Perón magnanimously accepted an apparent demotion to the most recondite corner of Argentine ministerial politics: the Secretary of Labor and Prevention.

The move, however, was a calculated attempt to achieve Perón's overarching vision: saving Argentina from the specter of communism, by ensuring that its working class and its trade unions would be integrated into the political system as an estate of the realm. In the course of accomplishing this, Colonel Perón's movement absorbed wildly different ideological currents: Socialists, Conservatives, Catholic Liberals, and Fascists; all congregated around the rising figure of Perón, and their views seeped into the virgin mold of the ideology of which he would become the namesake. The Colonel's decision ultimately decides which particular facet of Peronism is most prominent on any given day. Years of maneuvering in and out of government have, however, distorted and stretched the definition virtually beyond recognition. Insofar as Peronism - or Justicialism, its technical name - still retains any recognizable characteristics beyond its vagueness, its exaltation of the unwashed masses against the decadence of oligarchy, its predilection for economic nationalism, and its adoration for trade unions, are just about all that remains. Of course, this raises the possibility that said characteristics, and by implication Peronism, could outlive its creator in an organized form, the extreme personalism of the movement notwithstanding.

Kemalism[edit | edit source]

Kemalism, as the name suggests, is based on the ideals of the Turkish Republic's founding figure, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Born as a rejection of the perceived backwardness of the late Ottoman period, Kemalists seek to create and preserve a modern Turkish nation-state based on six guiding ideals; republicanism, populism, nationalism, laicism, statism, and reformism. Kemalism has historically held a tenuous relationship with democratic principles, having served the official ideology of both elected and unelected governments. The principle of Turkish nationalism has been increasingly emphasized in the years following the Second World War, largely as an overture towards the fascist powers of Europe, and a countermeasure against the far-right at home.

Provisional Government[edit | edit source]

The horrors of war do not simply fade away when conflict passes, they remain as scars, continuing to haunt nations as they descend to chaos and their regimes collapse. Emerging from these ruins is the provisional government.

Serving to restore order and the rule of law after extended periods of turmoil, the relative serenity that arrives with these temporary governments is often cheered on by the people as a soothing comfort in comparison to the near-anarchic conditions of the previous era brought on by never-ending war or the volatility and violence that comes with revolutions. The discord of the past is often discarded off in favor of renewed national dialogue, as the regime begins to define the legal structure of the subsequent permanent government. The regime partakes in a long struggle of rebuilding: reviving institutions eroded by neglect and corruption, clarifying laws; assessing the damage sustained by the nation, and both literally and figuratively dealing with the messes and troubles that remain from the former regime's administration through programs of political and economic reconstruction in hopes of restoring any sense of normality to a nation shaken to its core and its accompanying citizenry.

Right-Wing Populism[edit | edit source]

Populism, unlike what some may think, is a two-edged sword. While it can serve the interests of the left by appealing to the common people's desire for equality and social justice, it can also be used by the right as a tool to get in power, which makes it difficult to categorize as a coherent ideology: however, one can always still try.

Right-Wing Populism, as such, is an ideology with a few identifiable core tenets: first, an emphasis on anti-elites rhetoric; said elites are portrayed as corrupt and greedy, and are opposed to the common man. Unlike left-wing populism, however, such elites can be used to represent national or ethnic minorities as well. Right-wing populism is also keen on giving out welfare to the people, at the cost of disregarding the well-being of the economy Right-wing populists, while economically populist, generally take a conservative stance on social issues, and quite a few are avowedly anti-communist. Such a combination of attributes could be thought to be a recipe for disaster, but it seems that the tidal wave of populism has started its march nonetheless; and for now, God only knows when it will die down.

Xunzheng[edit | edit source]

Dr. Sun Yat-sen set up three stages for China's transition to democracy; Xunzheng, KMT-guided politics, is the final step of preparation for the eventual democratization. Under Xunzheng, though the Kuomintang remains the de jure ruling party, limitations on public gatherings are eased, and non-Kuomintang parties are permitted to have seats and votes in the Legislative Yuan. It is expected that the final stage of democratization - Xianzheng, constitutional politics - will take place once the domestic and foreign situation has been stabilized.

The late Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek claimed China had entered the stage of Xunzheng under his rule. But his concept of it was more centralized and authoritarian than had been envisioned; one could say it was merely a façade of legality for his stratocratic rule. Today, with the Republic of China reborn through the efforts of the NPA, Xunzheng shall live up to the true meaning bestowed upon it by Dr. Sun.

Anocracy[edit | edit source]

"Anocracy" is a broad term- one that can easily apply to any government anywhere around the world. The basic, scholarly definition is that it's part dictatorship, part democracy- but it goes deeper than that. Often, scholars will argue that it comes about as a product of interrupted or incomplete democratization- a formerly despotic or dictatorial nation, on the road to democracy, may be classified as an anocracy.

On the other hand, it may be the opposite- it may be a democratic nation that is currently undergoing democratic backsliding- a phenomenon that is well known around the world. From corrupt presidents to military juntas that allow certain elements of democracy to take place. The length that anocracies survive heavily varies- they can be incredibly brief, as a nation transfers from democracy to autocracy or vice versa- or they can stall out, and remain in this state for months, years, or decades- it all depends on a combination of the will of the people and the will of the despot.

Left-Wing Corporatism[edit | edit source]

Corporatism advocates the organization of society by groups on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, body, and describes an explicitly collectivist system of thought. Its ultimate aim is the construction of a society whereby classes cooperate with one another under the aegis of the State, as opposed to the class conflict inherent in systems such as communism.

Unlike with technocratic or fascistic strains of corporatism, Left-wing Corporatism cuts down on racialist rhetoric. It is happy to work with—or at least incorporate—left-wing elements. This could be out of genuine belief in the validity of leftist thought, or because the leader sees no other way to keep the proles quiet.

Technocratic Corporatism[edit | edit source]

Corporatism advocates the organization of society by groups on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, body, and describes an explicitly collectivist system of thought. Its ultimate aim is the construction of a society whereby classes cooperate with one another under the aegis of the State, as opposed to the class conflict inherent in systems such as communism.

The technocratic strain of corporatism is explicitly opposed to unions, calling them a roadblock to true class collaboration, and traditionally right-wing in its implementation of policy. Rather than appealing to leftist strains of thoughts, it predicates itself more upon traditionally corporatist ideas. However, technocratic corporatism also stops short of fascism; it eschews hardline nationalism as a cornerstone of its societal implementation.

Transitioning Democracy[edit | edit source]

Democracy isn't just a political system. It's a societal attitude. As such, it must be grown, nurtured, and developed. This is the purpose of a Transitioning Democracy.

In this stage, democratic consolidation either hasn't started, or is in its earliest stages. Political and civil rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and press, are beginning to be provided, though usually with some caveats. Police forces and the military typically play a role in the power dynamic, often at odds with the civilian government. Above policies, the definition of a Transitioning Democracy is in its outlook towars a free, liberal future. There are many reasons for why democracy is in this phase. New officers reforming away from an old military junta, a long-awaited revolution solidifying its power, or simply the old government pragmatically adopting a new ideology. No matter the reason, a transitioning democracy is a fragile bird, prone to break at the slightest of wrong moves. However, if care is taken, it can grow into a powerful force.

Paleoconservatism[edit | edit source]

Paleoconservatism, though an ideology in its own right, is also a reaction to the projects of other American ideologies. Whenever a liberal crosses a road to crash his cymbals for baby murder, the Paleoconservative pickets on the curb. Whenever a so-called conservative cedes a town hall's floor to a God-hating commie, the Paleoconservative puts his foot down and says "No. Not anymore." These determined men and women do this because the very idea of the American family rests behind them: a mother, a father, their two kids, and a white picket fence.

The Paleoconservative asserts that Americans have forgotten to act like Americans. Christ should stay in schools. Women should marry men. Wives should listen to their husbands. Boys will, and must, act like boys. Socialists should go elsewhere if they want socialism, for in America, people sing songs about freedom, not fake equality. The Blacks want the White man to spend his tax money on great big apartment blocks that bring crime to happy neighborhoods, but the Paleoconservative resists and says "Not in my backyard. You'll just keep asking for more." There will be no foreign interventions because America should focus on America first. There will be no government spooks to take working families' money, freedom, or culture. But the libbers won't even give them that. They'll rob them. They'll rob prayer from schools, children from parents, and all the pride from the greatest nation on Earth. But on their watch, so the Paleoconservatives swear, they'll never rob God for In God We Trust. America should rest easy, for the surging weight of history carries the campaigning families who hold their heads up high and sing in fearsome strains "I am for Mom and apple pie."

Poujadism[edit | edit source]

Pierre Poujade, an ordinary paper maker from the small town of Saint-Céré, had had enough. Enough of the common man being oppressed by the greedy financier; enough of the sad, sorry state in which France found herself; enough of the anti-democratic practice of the tyrannical Parti National. Enough of all that! And yet, what could he do?

Poujade, not being one to stay silent and take it, began to broadcast his message loud and proud. Down with the tyranny of global finance, and with their puppets in the halls of power! Down with big banking, and the judeo-masonic masters! Direct democracy now, by and for the people! Surprisingly enough, and despite what the elites would want you to think, the people sat, and listened. Tired of the Pétainist decay, and yet not lured by the false promises of the technocrats, they slowly woke up, under Pierrot's guidance, to bring him in the highest office of the land. The time for the New General Estates had come, at long last. Now, a hyperpopulistic coalition rules, coalesced in a personality cult around the one and only Pierre Poujade. For free enterprise, against global finance. For traditional values, against degenerate liberalism. For direct democracy, against corrupt politicians.\n\nFor France, and against all who would wish her harm.

Authoritarian Developmentalism[edit | edit source]

Unlike many other forms of authoritarianism, Authoritarian Developmentalists are usually somewhat democratically elected, do not deny that their government owes any duty to their constituents, and recognize people's right to political participation. However, when it comes to the great crusade for economic growth, which would subsequently improve the overall welfare of the citizens, Authoritarian Developmentalists believe that they are justified in suspending the "political excess" of democratic governance or freedom of expression to maximize economic output.

In short, the legitimacy of an Authoritarian Developmentalist regime hinges on the leader's ability to bring constant economic growth, instead of votes from his constituents. If the leader became unable to deliver his promise, he would usually either be forced to step down or to attempt to cling to power by writing his people a bigger check in the future. In most cases, the latter option poses a great risk, as the only reason why the masses are content with the regime is the money for which they "sold" their rights. If the leader resorted to promising large, non-withdrawable checks too often, he would face challenges both from within and without the government and would most likely be better off if he had agreed to a peaceful transition of power in the first place.

Herrerism[edit | edit source]

"In short: neither in the brown ranks of Nazism, nor one more star on the flag of any imperialism".

Being an Herrerist is not just following the path charted by Dr. Luis Alberto de Herrera, it means evoking the caudillist tradition of the XIX century. It means honoring Oribe's struggle against European interference in the Rio de la Plata and Saravia's fight for political representation for the common man. Those who call themselves Herrerists are the eternal defenders of the Libera- Conservative tradition, so undeservedly besieged by Jacobinism. They are the true defenders of social justice, for their fight is the fight for transparency and accountability of the government, so used to stealing the riches of the rural man for its petty projects or to satisfy the bottomless stomachs of the urbanites.

Herrera's followers are convinced they are true nationalists, for it is they who are against Anglo-Saxon infiltration of Hispanic culture, for it is they who defend the homeland from being turned into a vacation ranch for Americans. They understand that while Sovietization of the Americas is repugnant, fellow nationalists like the Sandinists are allies against the eternal enemy that seeks the unhappiness and subjugation of Latin America; the United States.

But the Herrerists are controversial among their opponents for their poor track record at respecting liberal democratic norms and barely hiding their illiberal sympathies. As with many caudillist movements, Herrerism shares the same weakness. For with Dr. Herrera buried and unable to guide, Herrerism is whatever the new caudillo says it is, leading to frequent infighting.

Despotism[edit | edit source]

Despotism is a wide-reaching term that encompasses governmental systems where power is concentrated on a single individual or group of individuals. These people run the nation according to their own will, and almost always make heavy use of the military and the police to keep their citizens from revolting. Despotist governments very rarely tolerate other ideologies and when they do they have systems in place to prevent those groups from ever gaining power. Opposition forces are treated as enemies of the state and heavily repressed, and if elections are ever held they are either completely rigged lies or for positions with no power.

Despotist governments also usually wish to establish control or dominance over other nations, and maintain extensive militaries to use in conquest and to protect the regime. While Despotists can use nationalism as a reason for their authority, they are not as nationalistic as Fascists and National Socialists and nationalism is usually more of an excuse than any real part of the agenda.

Absolute Monarchy[edit | edit source]

Absolute Monarchism is an ideology defined by total control by a monarch and the placement of all other government authority under their oversight. Most commonly, the monarch leaves the day-to-day management of the state to their ministers, but any decision can be overturned or reversed by them. With a history extending back thousands of years, absolute monarchy is one of the oldest and most enduring systems of government.

The transition from antiquity to the medieval era across the world saw the control of monarchs diminished in favor of the power of the aristocracy, who in some cases had only a nominal allegiance to their King. As the feudal eras of Europe and Asia waned, however, this arrangement quickly began to change once more. As kingdoms and empires grew in strength around the world, the powers of the nobility were increasingly wielded by the monarch and their ministers, especially in Europe. Even as the powers of European monarchs were curtailed in favor of constitutional governments, absolute monarchies continued to survive in much of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Today, in a world desperate for hope, some might seek to place all faith in royalty once again. As the great French King Louis XIV once said: "One King, one law, one faith."

Military Junta[edit | edit source]

"A Military Junta is a government where the military has taken political power into its own hands without any democratic element. Often this involves a suspension of the constitution of the state, and the rights contained therein. This leaves juntas free to stabilize the country into accepting their rule.

An authoritarian oligarchic rule characterizes a junta, with power shared among military leaders rather than centralized in a single person. Sometimes, civilian governmental institutions continue to function as well, but with their activities supervised or even directed by the junta. Other times, the junta rules formally and directly, maintaining legitimacy through a variety of other methods, most often promises of future democratization or of reclaiming lost land. Usually, a Military Junta takes power by coup d'état, though occasionally military leaders are invited to take control in times of crisis. Besides an emphasis on military strength and national security, they tend to differ greatly in their aims depending on circumstance. However, among all juntas, one ideal remains the same: the soldier protects, but he does not serve.

Civilian Dictatorship[edit | edit source]

Civilian Dictatorship, though a republican form of governance, should not be mistaken for a democratic one. Defined by the dictatorial grip on a state by a civilian regime, the military leadership is completely or near completely under the control of the civilian state, without the ability, and sometimes desire, to interfere with government functions.

Usually, the dictator legitimizes his government by creating or repurposing a political party to keep up the pretense of a democracy. This party both serves as a mask to hide the nature of the regime, and a tool to serve the needs of the state. It rarely holds real political power but can serve to advance skilled politicians to assist the dictator. They are often created when power is centralized in the hands of a single person, who goes on to declare that for one reason or another, they would be holding that power permanently. This control almost always continues until either their overthrow or their death.

Theocracy[edit | edit source]

Explicitly acknowledging a God or other such deity as their supreme authority, a Theocracy executes temporal functions through human intermediaries that are officially purported to receive divine authority or guidance. In order to do this many, most, or all of the nation's highest offices are occupied by clerical or religious officials, and state policy and actions are typically governed by the doctrines, beliefs, and scriptures of the religion that they purport to follow, whatever those may be or call for.

Internally, such nations are often characterized by prominent displays of religious observance, parochial institutions, state or otherwise, and a high degree of religious participation by their citizenry, whether voluntary or forced. With regards to foreign nations, the basic cordiality of interactions on the part of the theocratic regime again depends heavily on the character of the religion in question, and on the proclaimed qualities of the deity that the ruling class claim to represent. Whether they actually do or are only conveniently claiming to do so, is a perennial question.

Papacy[edit | edit source]

"Unique among many of its ideological peers, the Vatican exercises a wholly unique system of governance that blends monarchy, theocracy, and a semi-democratic elements into a coherent whole. The Pope is elected for life, though not chosen through inheritance or bloodline, by the College of Cardinals - senior bishops of the Catholic Church - during a Papal Conclave that convenes to choose the next Pope.

Upon selection, the Pope becomes head of the Holy See, Vatican, and the Catholic faith itself, imbued with the authority of an absolute monarch. The authority the Pope can exercise is vast, an transcends traditional borders as Catholics live across the world. While this has little practical authority, it gives the words of the Pope more weight than many other heads of state, and few set out to antagonize the Vatican as a result.

Interim Goverment[edit | edit source]

An interim, or caretaker, government is an intrinsically temporary one that exists in between more formally defined governments, whether those be the result of democratic elections, military imposition, or some other method. Typically rapidly formed in the aftermath of the fall of a previous government, however that fall may have been characterized, their inherent perceived legitimacy is generally low. Therefore, should they not be quickly replaced, national disorder and unrest iaresure to follow.

Such interim governments tend to be relatively authoritarian even if apolitical, if only to ensure that the status quo as it relates to state institutions is maintained until such time as their successor is properly established. At the same time, they are very unlikely to possess either the political will, or the physical ability, to execute policy of any real significance. The nation, in essence, remains 'frozen' until the interim government is replaced.

Colonial Goverment[edit | edit source]

The very definition of an empire is predicated on the idea of one nation ruling over others. Sometimes, local collaborators or noblemen are able to step up and help their new overlords manage things smoothly. But oftentimes, there may be a dearth of willing assistants from the local population, or they may simply not want to be ruled over.

Enter the colonial government. Staffed from top to bottom by bureaucrats, magistrates, and governors from the mother country, they take no orders from those they govern and would be loathe to do so. Their justifications for doing so may be myriad: the natives are uncivilized and not ready for home rule, doing so will harm their ruling country's political interests, or they simply don't trust the occupied nation enough to justify freeing them. If the governor is not a military man himself, they often have a close link to the military anyway, since it is the only institution the government can fully trust in event of an anti-colonial insurrection. Opportunities for a native under this regime are slim and none; if they are lucky, they will be able to get a job in the government's rank-and-file, with no hope for advancement beyond the lowest echelons of power. That is why these regimes so often tend to inspire fierce resistance; lots of angry, disenfranchised and disillusioned military-aged men with everything to gain and nothing to lose make for a wonderful anti-colonial rebel army.

Neo-Ba'athism[edit | edit source]

From the ashes of the 1958 Syrian rebellion, a conflict between the Civilian-led leadership and the Military Command would ripple throughout the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. From this conflict, Neo-Ba'athism would emerge in reference to a broad front of ideological deviation from Ba'athist orthodoxy.

United only by an emphasis on military supremacy over the party and the favoring of military-led struggle over civilian revolution. The Neo-Ba'athist movement would find itself disunited in nearly every other matter, whether it be economic or foreign policy. While the left of the faction is regarded by some as borderline Leninist, favoring pseudo-Marxist economic policy and even partially playing into the notion of class struggle; the right faction would position itself in favor of increased economic liberalization. Neo-Ba'athists are also generally characterized by a decreased interest in the ideas of Pan-Arabism, favouring more regionalist ideals. Derided by the old guard of the Ba'ath movement for their seeming abandonment of the party's original principles and their disregard of civil liberties, Neo-Ba'athism has nevertheless gained a sizeable influence over the party and the people due to their militant struggle, in contrast to the relatively tame intellectuals that form the orthodox cliques.

Eurasianism[edit | edit source]

A focused subset of nationalist thought, Eurasianism is defined by its relation to the proposed Eurasian 'super-ethnos,' the ideo-social concept that the Eurasian peoples, ranging from the Carpathian basin to the Mongolian steppes, must unite into a single social and political grouping in order to achieve national strength and protect against destructive influences from without. Through both preparing for and actually doing so, the 'passionarity,' or overall drive, of this ethnic grouping will be maximized, allowing for greatness to be achieved on a societal scale.

Key to this theory is the notion of the historical relation of the Russian nation to the West. Rather than endorsing the idea of Russia as a European nation, Eurasianism defines the Russian nation as one that, due to its relations to the Mongols and other Asiatic peoples, is fundamentally separate from the West, with Eurasian unity encouraged as a both a means of defense from Western influence and a means of cultural development and rejuvenation. Eurasianism encourages close ties between Eurasian peoples, strengthened ties with Asia rather than Europe, and strong rejection of both "parasitic internationalism" and European concepts which are deemed external to the super-ethnos.

Corporatocracy[edit | edit source]

While private capital exists in a tense relationship with the public interest in every developed country across the world, in almost every instance the public interest remains firmly in control of the levers of political power, with corporations being just one of many interest groups. However, this polity's unique circumstances has led to this normal state of affairs being reversed.

Whether by regulatory neglect, corruption, or deliberate design, the political role of the state in a corporatocracy is dominated by corporate interests and representatives. Whether they rule indirectly via bought men and regulatory capture, or more directly by the outright seizure of political power, a corporatocracy operates for the benefit of its corporate denizens, their shareholders, and investors first - and for the betterment of its people a distant second.

Vanguard Anarchism[edit | edit source]

Freedom is something too precious to be in the possession of the people.

Vanguard Anarchism attempts to combine the decentralized anarchist society with a standard, disciplined army to defend the society, often with a central, dominating leader of that army acting as the final voice when it comes to matters of survival of the society. Supporters of this style of anarchism argue it is fundamentally necessary in order to prevent more organized and stable external threats from overwhelming the communes. On the other hand, detractors consider this a fundamentally corrupt interpretation of anarchism, as the needs and will of the people are often subordinated to the army's authority in the name of defense and protection, and even besides, the sheer amount of individual power held by whoever runs the military makes them little better than any other tinpot dictator.

Aristocratic Conservatism[edit | edit source]

A state - be it republican or monarchical in nature - is not necessarily a democracy, and few socio-political schools of thought represent this idea in a subtle, yet insidious way more than Aristocratic Conservatism. A state so governed nominally possesses a constitution, and enjoys all of the structural institutions of a democratic polity.

However, large portions of the representatives, bureaucrats, regional leaderships and perhaps even the head of state are under the favors, payroll, or threats of the "silent rulers" of the country. These could be nobles from young democracies or the old guard of a monarchic government, adapting seamlessly to what is just a more abstract court. Or they could be wealthy ranchers and landowners, making sure the taxation system and government projects don't hurt their bottom line, and ideally, even increase their profits. To say that this rule has no opponents is inaccurate. After all, an opposition is essential to keep up a democratic appearance. But said opposition is either backed by different patrons or is neutered, having no political backing. Political reaction is the rule; for those in charge, the situation of the country currently is the best it has ever been. Whoever disagrees can be simply labeled an enemy of the state or branded a subversive revolutionary. All men have their price, after all, and nobody understands this better than the true rulers behind the veil of this government.

Warlordism[edit | edit source]

When people speak of power, they speak of man's control over the minds and actions of other men. Among the nations of the world, this control is often political. Leaders exert power through some combination of orders, threats, and persuasion, mediated through institutions that seek to restrain the real use of violence.

Warlord states lack the interest and the capacity for such subtleties. Cruel and brutal, warlords are leaders of armed bands who rely on violence to exert power over lands ravaged by war or crisis. They terrorize civil authorities, plunder resources, and exterminate uncooperative populations. Those unfortunate enough to live in a warlord state are often forced to contend with marauding bands of fighters, unpredictable and unrestrained from the rules of decency. While individual leaders can have complex goals and motivations, the bloated military apparatus they lead tends to be extractive, seeking to enrich itself at the expense of others.

Personalistic Dictatorship[edit | edit source]

Autocrats have come in many forms throughout recorded history. Whether ideologues or lawgivers, saints or tyrants, the greatest among them had something in common: a vision, pursued to the utmost with every means at their disposal. From the republic-turned-empire of Augustus to the continent-spanning revolutionary ambitions of Napoleon, the mark such individuals have left upon history is truly indelible.

Of course, those tend to be exceptions, rather than the rule. Most autocrats have far less high-minded motivations. Forget ideology, nation-building, or anything of that sort. For these men (and occasionally women), power is both the means and the end; "All for me, and none for thee." Egoism defines both their rulership and their personalities. They rule not by popular mandate or under the guidance of a higher cause, but by and for themselves. Extensive use of nepotism, brute force, and criminality can make their regimes, no matter how unpopular, exceptionally difficult to remove.

Partisan Movement[edit | edit source]

Freedom earned through blood is better than tyranny enforced through blood. That is the thesis of a partisan movement - if war is necessary to free their people from foreign occupation, then let loose its hounds and cry its chants. Besides a devotion to the cause of liberation and a general use of guerrilla warfare, partisan movements can hold nearly any ideology, be made up of any class or nationality, and can be organized in nearly every way a movement can be. They can fight in the cities, in the fields, in the forests, and in the mountains. From any place a person can hide, a partisan can fight.

As the jackboot continues to press on Europe's neck, as the rising sun's rays of oppression shine over Asia, and as the colonies of Italy languish under the Roman eagle, partisan movements have exploded in size and diversity to combat these evils. From the UPO in the Reich's "Model Colony" to more ideological groups like the UMAJF in Malaya, partisans across the globe continue their struggle. The oppressors will fall, and the tyrants will burn until the partisans reach the beautiful light on the horizon, the promised land they so desperately march toward. Hope for their people, who have lost it long ago. Justice for those that caused all of the pain and misery And most of all, what every partisan fights for above all: Freedom. For their people, for all time.

National Catholicism[edit | edit source]

The intersection of statecraft and religion goes back for as long as statecraft and religion have existed. Since time immemorial, matters temporal and spiritual have not only existed side by side, but both have crossed over and influenced one another to degrees so profound that it simply cannot be overstated. In the modern age, it is no different with the Catholic faith.

The National Catholics believe firmly that the best way to run the country is in accordance with traditional Catholic values and the enforcement of such, giving them a distinctly authoritarian and quite conservative character in general. Rather than merely encouraging adherence to tradition and the upholding of values, rigid adherence is something that must be enforced instead, separating them from other political Catholics. Rather than putting leadership directly in the hands of the faith as in the case of a theocracy, National Catholics typically push for cooperation with another arm of governance that would allow them to enforce their laws more effectively. Usually, but not always, it is a military force that provides the enforcement part of a National Catholic regime, especially in countries where Catholicism is a dominant religion in the country's populace- and therefore, its armed forces as well. Such a thing is, of course, necessary to prevent any backsliding into decadent, depravity and entropy.

Managerial State[edit | edit source]

A Managerial State refers to a political system where the country is controlled by and serves the interest of a selected group of elite bureaucrats. The leader of such a system, usually a group of technocrats selected via meritocracy as opposed to a personalistic dictator, seeks to maximize the efficiency of the state apparatus by micromanaging every aspect of the society through the hands of experts. While managerial states are not completely apathetic to their citizens' demands and needs, those concerns for citizens' welfare are nevertheless a variant in the technocrats' formula. The demands of the citizens are heard and responded to solely for the purposes of preventing revolts and maximizing economic outputs.

Leaders of managerial states tend to believe that the system they profess avoids the inefficacy of electoral politics and believe that experts are best-positioned to lead the country to prosperity. However, history has proven that they often fail to account for the unpredictability of human emotions, and such failure could easily lead to their downfall.

Institutional Despotism[edit | edit source]

A person touching down in a country such as this might look at the assorted trappings of liberal democracy it keeps around and conclude that the government is democratic—but they could not be further from the truth. Far from pursuing democracy, Institutional Despotism aims to create and maintain a 'Perfect Dictatorship' that successfully convinces people they are not, in fact, in a dictatorship. As the new decade dawns, the most obvious case of this is the PRI rule in Mexico.

In this state, institutions are all controlled and subverted by a single, incredibly-entrenched oligarchical party or other such group occupying the political bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the government has dictatorial powers to enforce its will, powers enshrined in laws that give the state massive oversight and the faculties to intervene anywhere it pleases. Furthermore, even most of the organized opposition is likely directly controlled by, or a satellite of, the ruling party to give an illusion of political pluralism. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine their displacement from power without an immense broad-front effort directed specifically toward that goal. Every action, inaction, use, and abuse is justified by a single unified goal or purpose inseparably tied to the ruling group or ideology—no matter how vague or logically incoherent said goal may become. The result is a despotism institutionalized and camouflaged, and a national ideology and civil society forced to revolve around an abstract goal absorbing everything that it touches—which is very frequently used to justify the self-interest of the political oligarchy that sits at its head.

Wang Jingwei Thought[edit | edit source]

Dr. Sun Yat-Sen once founded the Three Principles of People that guided the Kuomintang since its foundation, where it called for the independence of the Chinese people, eventual democratization of the government, and the establishment of a comprehensive welfare system that addresses each citizen's needs.

When Wang Jingwei and his followers proclaimed their rival government in Nanjing against Chiang, it became necessary for them to propagandize their version of the Three Principles of People compatible to Japan's vision for Asia. And so was Wang Jingwei Thought born - an interpretation of the Three Principles that calls for corporatism within, anti-Western sentiment without, and achievement of national welfare via cooperation with other East Asian countries, independent from any Western interference. Initially, Wangism is treated as none but a perversion of Dr. Sun's ideals, nevertheless, within the Nanjing Government, there are true believers of Wang's sermons. Japan's victory in the Great East Asia War has made Wang's ideals be deemed appropriate and become more influential. Regarded as the pioneer of Asia, the words of Wang Jingwei even starts influencing other Sphere countries, where Wangism became more popular among the populace and politicians.

Following Wang's death in the late 1950s, many competing interpretations of the Three Principles of People began to secretly circulate within different cliques of the Kuomintang. However, Wangism is nonetheless the interpretation that remains the most influential among the populace; years of youth indoctrination and the initial economical growth under Wang's Presidency have allowed the people to take Wangism as it is. Wang Jingwei Thought is seated firmly atop the throne of the nation's ideological orthodoxy in China - one that would take a truly alluring alternative to dislodge from.

Aristocratic Republicanism[edit | edit source]

The national identity is a beautiful thing, one born from the fight against alien royals who seek to oppress the common man and enslave him to work for foreign capital. But in the hands of this common man, its flame has dampened as petty squabbles leave it cast in darkness. It now falls upon an almost aristocratic grouping of capitalists, landowners and political elites to raise the torch to new heights.

To an outside observer, it would seem naive at best and blatant contradiction at worst. To these loyal sons of their republican founding fathers, it is only natural that those who have benefitted the most from their noble sacrifices carry on the Republican Revolution. For only they can unite each member of society, regardless of class or creed, against their historical oppressors who lie in wait for an opportunity to strike. Only they can ensure their protection from famine and poverty, ensure the upkeep of a culture and language that have been stamped into the ground by imperialism and allow each citizen their stake in the land's national wealth. But actions speak louder than words. The honeyed words of a landlord born with a silver spoon in his mouth have never put food on the table for a family of eight languishing in his almost-tenement domicile. Patriotic songs and dances celebrating ethnic massacres disguised as romantic strife show no love to the descendants of those survivors, alienated and targeted in speeches castigating them as parasites. These nationalists cast aside the concerns as minor quibbles of red rabble-rousers and enriched noblemen who have not yet learned to love the national unity of their sacred flag. However, as these concerns find a spotlight in the headlines of dissenting newspapers or interfere with the day-to-day running of government, questions arise over its power. Only time will tell if this unity will fix more divides than it will create.

Radical Kemalism[edit | edit source]

The will to power gives the nation its strength, the great men and women of yesterday who gave the masses a reason, a doctrine to follow lockstep, heel and toe behind. The great man in Turkey is Atatürk, and like the great men in Germany and Italy, his vision inspired a nation and gave a society a united vision of what our world was meant to be. If the nation is to continue to prosper, his ideals must be carried out with ruthless fanaticism and without compromise to the little people.

The primary tool used in this war of will is the state, a spearhead in the assault against reaction and regression, assailed and condemned at every waking moment in our society's endless stomp towards progress. The party will be a phalanx, a vanguard of Kemalist values undeterred by momentary fluctuations in opinion, prepared to hold tightly onto the instruments of government for as long as necessary to prevent the revolution from being reversed in a foolish fervor. The workers will work for the nation, given their just rewards not for acting as a slasve to servile materialism but as the fruits of their labar earned in a righteous devotion for the cause of strengthening Turkey against its enemies.

It is for all Turks, in all of Turkey, that this mission is taken for. There must be no weakness against those who undermine our hallowed national unity. The Republican ideal must be upheld to allow the white crescent to continue flying proudly in every corner of the country. And if these principles continue to be affirmed, the Turkish revolution will live for more than a thousand years, unstoppable in its march.

Ultranationalism[edit | edit source]

Ultranationalism is a vicious blend of rabid militarism and fervent devotion to the nation above all else. Ultranationalists are keen to purge their nations of perceived foreign influence of any sort. Thus they favour autarky, stratification and a strong military involvement in everyday affairs to insure that the country is kept independent and "safe from outside corruption". The idea of a glorious state is the key to all things for the ultranationalist, and they will call upon images from the past to stir up and inspire in combination with a paranoid and savage hatred of the other and the outsider. Racism and other forms of discrimination are weaved into all parts of life, to further raise up and separate the ideal countryman from those that do not fit in. In order to make truth of their promises of the "great nation", ultramilitarism presents the military as the ultimate tool for prosperity and greatness. Service to the state in this manner is therefore mandatory for most and deeply glorified as a part of the nation's triumph over the rest of the world. Ultranationalism has often manifested as part of a desire for revenge against foreign enemies and uses this desire to drive the nation forward. While some differences are known to exist between each ultranationalist movement, they never differ in their mad desperation to see eternal glory rain down upon their lands.

Slavo-Aryanism[edit | edit source]

According to the more esoteric adherents of Nazism, prehistoric Europe was once dominated by an Aryan superculture that preserved their racial purity, built great works of art, and founded majestic cities. However, over time they were corrupted by deceitful Jewish interference, who manipulated them into intermarrying with lesser races and covered up their glorious heritage. Their descendants, who have fallen far but may regain their former glory, are now known as the German people.

Slavo-Aryanists would agree with everything above, but replace "German" with "Slavic." To them, it is the Russians who are the heirs of the all-powerful Aryan race, and the Germans are actually inferior Asiatics who occupied Aryan lands at the behest of the Jews. But beyond that, they quibble plenty over all the details. They disagree on the Aryan race's point of origin: some say the Russian heartlands, some say the far north, some say a lost landmass that inspired the story of Atlantis, and some say the Levant. They are solidly anticlerical and believe that Christianity is a tool of the Jew to undermine the soul of Russia, but they bicker about the proper spelling of Perun and the canonicity of Hindu Vedas. When it comes to coherent economic and political theory, they have none. The ancient Aryans did not need to know about GDP or postclassical realism to achieve their perfect society, so why should they bother learning it today? The only aspect that truly matters is war, a total war, one that will reinvigorate the Russian spirit and reawaken the blood of the Aryan that flows through the veins of every Slav. And when the last Jew is strangled with the guts of the last German, they claim, the Aryan race shall be restored once more.

Ultramilitarism[edit | edit source]

Ultramilitarist regimes are, in general, little more than a military organization expending the minimal effort possible to provide civilian state institutions, in order to redirect all that possible towards the military and military-related interests. They are, in essence, an army with a state, with every decision of policy ultimately, in some fashion, supporting military endeavors, and with nearly all actions underlaid by an ideological doctrine of rabid and uncompromising nationalism.

To achieve this, they are often internally characterized by omnipresent propaganda and the active promotion of nationalist thought. In addition, and in order to sustain their military administration, such governments typically display extreme aggression on the world stage, towards both neighboring states as well as those considered state enemies, for reasons of history, political expediency, or others as determined. This often results in the nation being in near-eternal conflict, armed or otherwise, which to its leaders and people is often a desired goal in itself.

Fundamentalism[edit | edit source]

Typically characterized by the twin pillars of a uniting religious authority or purpose and a rabid hatred of or mobilization against some external enemy, Fundamentalist governments tend to be defined by the narrative of their perceived national and ideo-religious struggle. Very often, their political structure is largely composed of religious or otherwise clerical figures, and their social and domestic policies are formed in close adherence to the tenets and scriptures of their organizing religion, whatever it may be.

The perception of this intrinsic national struggle often results in these governments acting to both dehumanize their foes and subsequently act aggressively against them, whether by military expansionism or more subversive means. Diplomacy, especially with those seen as sympathetic to their doctrinal enemies, is extremely difficult, when possible at all. Summarized, such governments are often synonymous with near-eternal conflict, overt or covert, against an almost ever-growing list of mortal enemies.

Esoteric Despotism[edit | edit source]

It was Lord John Edward Acton who first said: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", and while it isn't unheard of for an absolute ruler to govern with justice and temperance, these examples are profoundly rare; tyrannical forms of government are as easily identifiable as the seasons, viciously snuffing out dissent, turning entire countries into proto-slave states, and governing through fear and intimidation, yet even these extreme measure are at least implied to have limits; a natural order that even the harshest of autocratic governments must abide by to validate and justify their rule.

The body politik falling broadly under the denomination "Esoteric Despotism" refutes this in just about every fashion, turning the state into something even more twisted and perverse than that of even traditionally totalitarian regimes; taking authoritarian ideals far beyond rational governance, these regimes tend to congregate around the abstract or idiosyncratic belief system of a particularly influential ruler or political party, societal and economic restructuring is done entirely at whims of said individual(s), implied disagreement with the state is tantamount to treason and reprisals are often so cruel and sadistic as to be functional, if not literally medieval in nature.

Reactionary Nationalism[edit | edit source]

"Reactionary Nationalism, like many other ideologies, emerged from the minds of the men who endured the industrial horrors of the twentieth century. When those men returned home, they could not reconcile the grand narratives for which they had fought with the reality of the world they had shaped. Modernity had conspired against them. They found no clarity of vision, they found no unity in strength. The romance of the soldier's return was a fiction. The romance of soldierly virtues was a fiction. Subjectivity usurped certitude. As time passed, there were more revolutionsand , more humiliations. More moralizing from materialistic creatures that could only breed in total vacuity. More traditionare s thrown to dogs. More suffering for it. More of the same, though without sameness.

Reactionary Nationalism proposes that nations must return to a past state of social organization in order to cast off the spiritual malaise enforced by twentieth-century modernity. This structure is typically picked from a narrow, romanticised slice of time in that nation's history, though it can also relate to methods for the violent transposition of antiquated moral norms onto colonies and other realms of empire. The policies born thereof are more frequently annihilationist than assimilationist, for Reactionary Nationalists believe that homogeneity is a prerequisite of nationhood. Reactionary Nationalism is warlike and exclusive by nature. It must be, in order to satisfy the perverted heroism it proselytizes. Reactionary Nationalists believe that they seek justice by making the world as it should be, informed by the inalienable truth that some men are superior, and some men are inferior. But the lot of these self-styled knights is to fit virtues that never existed, or to force people who only know modernity to mold themselves into figures in gilded paintings. Starved of defined ideology, Reactionary Nationalism attaches itself to a superficial aesthetic, or the image of a knight in armor, visor down, and sword upright, so that any statesman may imagine himself as an emissary of return. But the lie does not matter. The ideal unites. The romance unites.

Fascism[edit | edit source]

Of the ideologies that emerged in the tumult following the First World War, the one that proved to have the greatest success in achieving and maintaining power in Europe was the ideology known as fascism. Borne out of the beliefs of disillusioned communists and authoritarian nationalists, fascism is often characterized as being "third positionist" due to its ideological inspiration from both the radical left and right. Although traces of Marxist doctrine can still be found buried in its worldview - it embraces a producer-parasite dialectic, but between nations instead of economic classes - its virulent nationalism puts it at odds with the internationalist mindset of socialism, and it inevitably led to violent conflict within Germany, Spain, and Italy in the interbellum decades. In all cases, the fascist parties eventually won out and forced their socialist rivals underground.

Fascism's most defining qualities come from its slavish devotion to the state. The government, often under the control of a single strongman, serves as the final arbitrator and authority in the land. Religious institutions, trade unions, private businesses, and the like are permitted to exist in some limited form, though their subservience to the state's authority is made clear. The government also upholds a national mythos, spinning tales of a noble people with past glories that were unfairly stripped from them, and demands that the populace find strength in unity and reclaim what was lost. They sneer at liberal nations for decadent complacency and socialist nations for succumbing to degeneracy - yet paradoxically view those outsiders as a looming threat who are posed to destroy everything they hold dear.

Corporate Statism[edit | edit source]

Money can buy many things - towers of steel, cities of gold, the loyalties of craven men - but not a monopoly on violence. Or a country. At least, not yet.

Although the role of corporate capital in this polity is monumental - entirely out of the scope of what would be expected anywhere else in the world - the state maintains its prerogatives. Though the corporations and their lieutenants are omnipresent, and their wishes cannot be ignored, their desires and machinations are ultimately subject to the whims and needs of a single primarch. Even if the economic and social life of this society is dominated by private enterprise, the political direction of the state remains firmly in the grip of a singular entity, bending the efforts of others to serve a purpose greater than mere profit. Here, labor and capital are both subsumed under the vision of their betters.

Corporatism[edit | edit source]

Corporatism, from the Latin word for the human body, is one of the earliest economic models that presented itself as a "third position" to counter both capitalism and socialism. It is subject to a great many influences, from classical Greek philosophy to leftist syndicalism, but it was ultimately the proto-fascists who dominated the legacy of corporatism. It became deeply associated with Catholic and other religious traditionalism, integralism, and "clerical fascism" in the interwar years, and it served as a model to people such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Engelbert Dollfuss, and Antonio Salazar.

While corporatism is collectivist and believes economic classes are a fundamental unit of society it teaches that the greatest good can only be achieved through class collaboration rather than class struggle. Workers and employers alike are organized into some form of corporate body - be it guilds, syndicates, trade unions, or worker cooperatives - based on their industry, and it would be these corporate bodies that lobby the government on their behalf. The amount of representation the individual is afforded in the government is subject to variance, but usually often very little. Corporatism is also marked by a heavy preference towards a traditionalistic interpretation of the moral codes prevalent in the locality, especially with regards to marriage, sexuality, family structures, and popular media.

Sansepolcrismo[edit | edit source]

Taking its name from a discourse held by Benito Mussolini in Milan's Sansepolcro Square, Sansepolcrismo is the very first incarnation of the fascist ideology, back when the PNF didn't exist yet, and fascism still called itself "Fighting Fasces". At the time, the movement's name and iconography were a tribute to the Arditi, Italy's elite assault corps and the very first to wear the black shirt - which would become the uniform of the future MVSN, the feared Camicie Nere.

The Sansepolcro Manifest advocated for a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism, taking the best from both sides while discarding what was deemed unnecessary. As such, early fascism conjugated private economic initiative with heavy state intervention in the economy, parity between sexes and worker uplifting programs with rabid nationalism and unbridled militarism, vote for women with single party state: a mèlange of political, social and economic beliefs, kept together by the messianic figure of the Duce, the voice of the people, who knew what was best for all - and had the strength to pursue it.

Abandoned over the years in favor of less revolutionary policies that catered more to the middle classes, Sansepolcrismo has been brought back to the forefront of political discourse by Ettore Muti's meteoric rise to power. While unstable and somewhat erratic, it is undeniable that this ideology finds fertile ground among the lower classes and the military, making it a powerful tool to counter the advancement of socialism in society: only time will tell whether it will be successful, inaugurating a new age of nationalistic zeal and class cooperation, or it will once again be forgotten.

Fascist Mysticism[edit | edit source]

Founded by Niccolò Giani, the School of Fascist Mysticism has spent years crafting a comprehensive analysis of both modern and ancient philosophy, society and religion. Constantly striving to find the reasons behind the great events of History, the members of this school came to the conclusion that matters of state, economy, religion, ethics and race are tightly bound: as such, there must be something capable of holding everything together, espousing the supreme good and fighting the supreme evil - and that something is Fascism.

In the eyes of Niccolò Giani, Fascism is more than a political ideology. Preaching eternal devotion to the State, unflinching faith in God, and utter loyalty to one's family, comrades and brothers-in-arms, it is a comprehensive code of values that can find application in every moment of a person's life, replacing all other social constructs, including religion: in fact, Fascism is the final and logical conclusion of Christianity, with the messianic figure of the Duce acting as paragon of virtue, and supreme authority in both political and religious matters - making the corrupt and decadent Clergy unnecessary.

Previously confined to academic halls and theoretic debate, Niccolò Giani's meteoric rise to power in the Italian Empire has seen Fascist Mysticism experience a dramatic increase in both importance and adherents, as its teachings offer hope to desperate Italians: duty in place of uncertainty, and devotion in place of doubt. As the faithful grow in strength and numbers, the Duce smiles, for every new follower is not only a step closer to what Fascism was meant to be - it is a step closer to ascension, in both body and soul.

National Syndicalism[edit | edit source]

Despite what some may think, National Syndicalism is not exactly fascism, but nor is it socialism either. As revolutionary as it is anticommunistic, rooted in the writings of both Georges Sorel and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, it is a very idiosyncratic ideology, merging various influences to become something wholly new.

Just as its name indicates, National Syndicalism could be described as a fiercely nationalist version of revolutionary syndicalism. Seeking to organize society around a system of syndicates, and promoting class cooperation instead of class struggle, it aims to constantly revolutionize itself, which means that it is, at least in theory, deeply progressive.

National Syndicalism, while still fairly popular in Latin American countries and a lingering influence on Spanish intellectuals, is not as voguish as it once was. Indeed: times have changed since the 1920s, and what was once seen as a young, fiery ideology has now been eclipsed by other radical currents, such as national socialism or communism. Nevertheless, a resurgence, while certainly unexpected, still seems to be possible, for National Syndicalism's perpetual modernisation might turn out to be its greatest strength.

Fascist Populism[edit | edit source]

Some leaders are fond of expressions such as "the world has need of our nation, and our nation has need of all its people." Yet behind these apparently neutral calls for national unity and joint effort is a system no less fascistic than that first envisioned by Benito Mussolini, the Master of the Mediterranean, all those years ago: that of Fascist Populism.

Fascist Populism is fascism for the farmers and peasants of the countryside - it focuses on the interests and welfare of the idealized "Old Country", far away from the alleged "decadence" and "corruption" inherent in cities and towns. As a result it focuses on the welfare of rural areas to an extent even many agrarian leftists and centrists would find irrational.

Fascist Populism also eagerly plays on the neuroses and concerns of the average farmer to strengthen its base. An abhorrence for the "other", most frequently manifested in xenophobia and anti-Semitism, figures prominently in their policy. Just as important to them is well-deployed welfare - to ensure that farmers "can receive from the Nation their just reward for their work" - and protectionism, to shield the rural industries (whether deservedly or not) from their "hostile" competitors outside.

Ordosocialism[edit | edit source]

In 1847, Karl Marx shook the world to its very core. He created an ideology that discarded the old order, and addressed the true struggle of the common man. Now, Marx's true successor has arrived. Ivan Serov, creator of Ordosocialism, did not understand why one's patriotic love for their country must be at odds with their nation's class struggle. Why must they demonize the Germans, when their ideology clearly has unique characteristics that could better serve the forces of revolution? Ordosocialism is the resolution to these conflicting questions and ideals.

Ordosocialism is the synthesis of the class struggle and the national struggle. Ordosocialism is the synthesis of all that opposes both capitalism and cosmopolitanism. Ordosocialism concerns itself with the destruction of those who decided to follow the path of reaction, and those whose reactionary tendencies are of a more... hereditary nature.

Some fools accuse Ordosocialism of being a reactionary, corporatist betrayal of all that Marx stood before. Some fools accuse Serov of being a madman, no better than Hitler himself. These individuals attempt to weaken the revolution with their slander, and defend hereditary reactionaries despite their inherent opposition to the revolution. Serov and his followers will not let these false claims distract them, however, for they have a new revolution to bring forth. A revolution free of the rot that plagued its predecessors.

Revolutionary Nationalism[edit | edit source]

Heralding a new era for the people now stood atop the shoulders of slain giants, a new wave of energy had emerged from the rotting carcasses of empires; a zealous 'Revolutionary Nationalism', materializing wherever the imperialist boot had once tread. Rejecting unequal treaties from London, resource-pillaging from Paris, and imperial diktats from Berlin, this newfound nationalism has roared in the shadows of Europe's empires to repel the horrors and brutality that had once emerged from the colonial office.

Many of these post-colonial regimes govern underdeveloped and highly hierarchical economies as a result of their historical exploitation. However, authorities drive to modernize their countries, often unifying their people around a powerful figure or institution alongside patriotic, and sometimes revanchist, rhetoric. The newly-founded nation remains at the center of all political life; workers are instructed to toil for the strength of the country just as soldiers are told to fight to defend the homeland's recent freedom. Social views on morality and personal autonomy vary, but almost all agree upon a single, unified cultural identity in the face of a new modernity. As Europe lies fractured and limp under the grey jackboot, the liberated peoples cheer to celebrate independence from the masters who could no longer bear the whip.

Falangism[edit | edit source]

Born in the chaos of the Spanish Second Republic, Falangism seeks to marry the revolutionary economic ideology of National Syndicalism with conservative catholic Christian teachings. While conserving the anti-capitalist, anti-communist, inflammatory, and dynamic rhetoric of National Syndicalism, it is way more moderate in practice. Falangists will still call for the creation of vertical syndicates, but they are not as radical as their predecessor and Falangists will often find themselves working under a state capitalist system. In line with their policy of class collaboration, the worker-manager relations in these syndicates will be managed by the state through the state-owned syndicates. However, this extensive state control of the syndicates and the economy as a whole can often cause Falangist states to fall under the system of Corporatism.

The aspect where National Syndicalism and Falangism clash the most, however, is their social outlook. While the former advocates for a "Constant Revolution", the latter is ultra-conservative. Falangism also rejects the separation of church and state, and it often advocates for Christianity as a state religion. Its also a very nationalistic ideology, especially when applied in hispanic countries, where it seeks to unite the Spanish-speaking world in something called "Hispanidad". For this reason, South America is where Falangism enjoys the most popularity outside of Spain. It also endorses a form of Christian-based nationalism, which can cause problems in nations where Christianity is not the dominant religion. Looking at it from the surface, Falangism seems very similar to National Syndicalism, but as you delve deeper, the social and cultural differences become evident between the two ideologies.

Reform Bureaucracy[edit | edit source]

Like most great powers, Japan found itself deeply divided during the interwar period of the early 20th century. At the close of the Great War, it had been a mere 60 years since the nation had begun its transformation from an isolated, feudal society to a modern and industrialized nation-state. No such change would be without teething problems, particularly in the field of economics - after all, the free-market status quo had originally developed naturally, over a lengthy period of time, and the arrival of revolutionary socialism only complicated matters further. From a combination of that era's uncertainties, ideological experimentation, and the new experience of colonialism emerged a uniquely Japanese phenomenon: 'kakushin kanryō', or 'Reform Bureaucracy'.

For such an unassuming name, Reform Bureaucracy carries quite the legacy of cruelty and exploitation. Best realized in the ruthlessly exploited puppet state of Manchukuo, it is unapologetically dehumanizing, corporatist, and even fascistic. To these bureaucrats, economics is a matter of nothing but numbers and well-trained cogs, a series of gears dedicated to expanding the nation's preparedness for war and mobilisation. Drawing upon the 'total war' economy of the late German Empire, the economic rationalization of the Weimar Republic, and the planned economy espoused by many hardline socialists, Reform Bureaucracy's ultimate goal is simple: the complete subordination of the economy to the needs of the state, generally with the military and a politicized bureaucracy as the main benefactors.

Integralism[edit | edit source]

There exist many variants of Integralism, often affected by the circumstances in which its exponents find themselves. Yet the core principles are very much the same, and have the same basis: that of stridently fundamentalist, traditionalist Catholicism.

Integralism rejects the values brought about by the Enlightenment - those of secularism, democracy, and liberalism - and denounces the widespread societal consequences brought about by the Industrial Revolution as being a disaster for humanity. Instead of embracing 'progress' and change, an integralist will insist that the only way for people to lead moral, dignified lives is through a return to agrarian medievalism, in a society predicated upon hardline Catholicism.

Based on a corporative concept of the society working as a human body, integralism is not built on a concept of a glorious future to be built off of an ancient ideal, but instead on a ruthless, hardline attempt to bring that glorious - and often imagined - past back, by any means necessary.

Ecclesiastical Nationalism[edit | edit source]

With enough faithful, no barricade can hold, no walls can stand. There has never been a force such as faith in history, capable of galvanizing the masses and pervading every thought. It is capable of changing behaviors, outlooks, and personalities. As omnipresent as it is, it is evident that religion will eventually fuse with the nation, forming a chimera of an ideology known as Ecclesiastic Nationalism.

While not as extreme as its overtly racist counterpart, Clerical Fascism, Ecclesiastical Nationalism is still an authoritarian ideology. This ideology asserts that a nation is inherently interrelated with religion. The separation of faith and state is then completely erased, and policy takes a distinctly religious aspect. However, it still isn't a theocracy. Members of the clergy are not in positions of power, but the leader will be seen with high-ranking heads of religion. What organized religious movements exist will be subordinated to the state. On the subject of the history of the nation, Ecclesiastic Nationalists will emphasize the deep-rooted links between the nation and religion, often glorifying religious and pious figures, like Saint Sava of Serbia or Jeanne D'Arc of France. These figures will not only be looked up to for their faith but their role in history. They will become political figures as much as religious figures as the state itself. Religion will become politics, and politics will become a religion. When one looks at Ecclesiastic Nationalism, one can't help but wonder if this is the true purpose of faith or simply a transformation of religion into an insidious political tool.

Neosocialism[edit | edit source]

The 1930s were a period ripe with unparalleled political polarisation emerging from the economic catastrophe that struck the Earth as a whole in the wake of the Great Depression. And it is from this state of misery and disillusionment with the traditional paradigms of political thought that the seeds of the Neosocialist ideological phenomena would first be cultivated within the rightist ideologues of the French Section of the Workers' International and the Belgian Socialist Party.

Seeking to bring unity and tranquillity to societies stricken with dysfunction and chaos, the Neosocialists would reject the Marxist world-view and its theory of class struggle. Instead, the innovative architects of the newly-born Neosocialist Movement, such as Hendrik de Man and Marcel Déat, would nurture and advocate their own visionary theoretical conceptions of "Planisme" and the "Constructive Revolution" - a radical restructuring of society in a revolution from above carried out by a technocratic clique at the helm of the state through a mandate accorded to them by the masses. While it may not seem necessarily nationalist at first glance, the ideologues of Neosocialism with their autocratic bent and their flirtations with Fascist rhetoric and ideology would soon shift towards nationalistic attitudes as a way to bridge the discord that plagued their countries, thereby allowing them to make way for the technocratic, planiste, corporativist and socialist society that would follow the rigorous transformations arising from their revolution.

With the fall of the arbiter of International Socialism in the Soviet Union, it appears that the time of the Neosocialists is perhaps now, as both former Socialists whose world-views were shattered by the crumbling of Bolshevism and former Fascists disenchanted by the stagnation and despair enveloping the once-victorious Axis powers rush to its promises and the cures it proposes for their afflictions of cynicism.

Social Credit[edit | edit source]

C.H. Douglas, in his description of a model of economics in which debt-free purchasing power is supplied to all citizens, viewed it as a method by which the machinations of "the inner circles of High Finance" cauld be overcome. Fascists who believe in social credit make the implicit identity of said inner circles explicit. They brand financial institutions, both domestic and international, as Jewish plots for dominance, and seek to overturn this conspiracy with the deployment of social credit.

For the social credit fascists, the influence of Jewish bankers begets the destruction of national traditions. Through their market manipulation, virtue is made worthless and vice made profitable; the people are thus drawn to abandoning God and Country in favour of aimless decadence. To these fascists, it is but another problem of artificial scarcity resolved by the distribution of purchasing power. By subsidising the righteous and making virtue profitable through social credit, these fascists believe that they can restore national values from the moral wasteland of modernity.

Their critics are many, and their points are plentiful, but social credit is still a young ideology on the world stage, its fascist child even younger. Time will tell whether their dreams can be realised, or if their delusional voyage will be shattered against the rocks of reality.

British Fascism[edit | edit source]

The First World War scarred Britain like no conflict since the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the blood-soaked trenches of France and Flanders etching themselves in the traumatised psyche of an entire generation. As Europe staggered forth into an uncertain new world, it found something truly monstrous. And Britain was no exception to this dark discovery.

Unlike its brethren on the continent, Fascism in Britain developed along two distinct lines. The more orthodox, revolutionary branch championed by Oswald Mosley, and another, far more idiosyncratic form of Fascism that germinated among the minds of the aristocracy and upper class. This latter form preached a distinctly British Fascism, one that would shield the Britain of old from the financiers, the Jews and the communists, and save the Empire from destruction at their hands. When German boots marched through London and sent out the call for collaborators to lead the new Britain, it was the adherents of this British Fascism who answered, and thus cemented their doctrine as dominant, for a time.

Now however, British Fascism finds itself once more at a crossroads. After a decade of unopposed rule, the Uprising of 1956 rent open the divide once more as Mosley's acolytes returned to prominence, along with believers in a new, even more revolutionary form of Fascism. The Old Guard of the BPP however, do not intend to sit idly by as their resurgent rivals launch a counter-attack, and have rallied around their old leaders once again. The coming decade will see if British Fascism stands firm as a bastion of oligarchic traditionalism, cementing its place as the undisputed sovereign once more, or if it is toppled by youthful fire and vigour, its final followers its first, left to wither away and die forgotten.

Neofascism[edit | edit source]

To be a neofascist is to wear a mask. This mask does not need to always stay on, but it must be worn strategically, so as to not reveal one's true nature.

As opposed to more traditional fascists, neofascists attempt to conceal their ideology, changing their message in order to fit their audience. When talking to fellow fascists, their masks will come off and they'll plainly declare their allegiance to fascism. However, when talking to an audience that would find such open declarations unpalatable, they'll avoid direct references to fascism. Instead, they'll dilute their message behind more acceptable rhetoric, focusing on nationalism, anti-communism, and corporatism. One may assume that neofascist regimes are dictatorial. However, while this may very well be the ideal for many neofascists, this is not necessarily the case. While they would prefer to construct a less democratic society, most neofascists are aware of the lack of support for such measures, and instead resign to work within the democratic system. Neofascists intend to walk through the night, carrying a light behind them. That light does not help themselves, but as they make their way through the dark, they light the way for others to follow.

National Socialism[edit | edit source]

National Socialism, the iron fist clutching the heart of Europe for nearly thirty years, refers to various styles of fascism incorporating fervent racism, extreme militarism, and a totalitarian, one-party state where individuals are subordinated for the common good. It is distinct from other forms of fascism in its core tenets of brutally enforced racial hierarchy and aggressive, genocidal expansionism as "living space" for its nation's peoples.

In the German sense, Nazism holds several key tenets close to its black heart—anti-Semitism ingrained in every political action; a deep disdain for traditional liberal democracies, the parliamentary system, and capitalism; and finally, its strong hatred for Communism. While most National Socialist nations are either with or direct collaborators with the German Reich, the term is now often used to describe a variety of fascist movements around the world that echo Nazism's foundations, each with their own unique attributes, such as radical Japanese imperialism.

Nazism, with its roots deeply embedded in the tumultuous history of the mid-20th century, left an indelible mark on the political landscape. The brutal enforcement of racial hierarchy, aggressive expansionism, and totalitarianism characterize this dark chapter in history.

Orthodox National Socialism[edit | edit source]

Orthodox Nazism emerges as a fervent reaction to perceived deviations from the essence of Adolf Hitler's will. Envisioned by its adherents as the true embodiment of the Führer's Endsieg and the architect of Germany's New World Order, this ideological strain vehemently rejects any dilution of its creed through factionalism. To devoted believers, those who preach "progress" or "strength" are dismissed as fattened pigs and opportunists, unworthy to dictate the trajectory of the Reich. In their eyes, the answer to Germany's destiny lies not in the proclamations of these interlopers but within the unyielding annals of History.

However, History proves to be an enigmatic and indifferent master, refusing to yield its wisdom easily. While ideologues articulate their convictions with apocalyptic fervor, the Orthodox strain reveals a nuanced landscape marked by hidden complexities and subtle contradictions. Martin Bormann, in his role as a proponent, dictates the tenets of a patchwork dogma, impervious to dissent. Through vague theses, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) is called to cleanse itself of "clingers-on" and "due payers," fostering the emergence of a new party cadre. This envisioned cadre, comprised of iron zealots, aims to wield dominance over every facet of society with a fervor that transcends the average man.

For the Orthodox National Socialist, the illogical and quixotic foundations of his ideology are inconsequential. Indifferent to the false pretenses upon which Bormann's vision rests, he perceives it as the logical evolution, the next step in the journey towards a Germany that mirrors Hitler's but surpasses it in intensity and purity.

Reformed National Socialism[edit | edit source]

The trajectory of ideologies that ascend to power inevitably undergoes a transformative evolution, and Nazism is no exception to this paradigm. In its nascent stages, the supreme authority of Nazism rested unequivocally in the hands of Adolf Hitler, encapsulated by the "Führerprinzip," where the Führer's word was the ultimate decree, defining Nazism at its core. However, as time elapsed and Hitler's direct influence within the party diminished, the once unassailable gatekeeper of National Socialist thought faced challenges in enforcing his will as the singular guiding force.

Amidst this power vacuum, Albert Speer emerged as a prominent figure seizing the opportunity for ideological recalibration. Spearheading a National Socialist praxis marked by a discernible departure from some of Hitler's more controversial policies, Speer sought to dilute aspects such as meticulous racial quantification, the elusive pursuit of economic autarky, the unwavering empowerment of the military, and even the zealous veneration of Hitler himself. This strategic departure from sacred tenets drew vehement criticism from more ardent adherents who labeled him a revisionist, factionalist, or even accused him of harboring intentions to replace Nazism with a perceived weaker and effeminate Italian fascism. Some went as far as branding him a crypto-democrat intent on annihilating Nazism entirely.

Yet, Speer's intentions, often misunderstood by his rivals, were not aimed at dismantling Nazism but at rescuing it from internal contradictions. Through pragmatic ideological concessions, he sought to excise the gangrenous elements while ensuring the vitality of the larger body. By tempering rampant militarism, Speer aimed to mitigate the risk of Caesarism within the general staff. Moreover, by permitting criticism of Hitler, he aimed to cultivate a cult of personality, veiled with an appearance of openness.

In essence, Speer's grand design aimed to transform National Socialism from a convoluted amalgamation of self-destructive contradictions into a streamlined and functional ideology, all while safeguarding its fundamental core. The envisaged transformation would maintain the framework of a one-party state, uphold ideals of racial purity, and, most crucially, preserve the unassailable authority of the singular Führer.

Idiosyncratic Nazism[edit | edit source]

At its core, National Socialism transcends mere ideological precepts; it is a comprehensive worldview, a state of thought, and an entire way of life, with the Aryan race serving as its fundamental heart and epicenter. To subject the Aryan people to the constraints of practicality or confine them within the boundaries of a German state is deemed the epitome of folly within the tenets of this ideology. The National Socialist dream, once relegated to dormancy at the feet of corrupt tyrants, persists as a resilient force.

In the face of challenges, this dream finds new life through the advocacy of figures like Theodor Oberländer and Georg Leibbrandt, who champion a distinctive strain known as Idiosyncratic Nazism. Unlike adherents of the pragmatism embodied by Speer or the dissenting voices accused of degeneracy, these reformist National Socialists commit themselves to a higher cause: the welfare of the Aryan people. Within the ranks of Idiosyncratic Nazis, diverse perspectives emerge, ranging from the belief that some designated "Slavs" possess Aryan blood to others who perceive them as a lesser, albeit not subhuman, race. Yet, they all share a common vision that extends beyond viewing the East as a vast slave pen for Lebensraum expansion; instead, they recognize potential allies in a global struggle against the perceived Judeo-Bolshevik menace.

Intriguingly, many proponents of Idiosyncratic Nazism advocate for a return to the populist roots of National Socialism, advocating for a recalibration of government policy that centers around the Aryan citizenry. To external observers, this ideological offshoot may appear as a perplexing amalgamation of contradictions, seemingly destined to crumble under the weight of its own complexity.

Clerical Fascism[edit | edit source]

Fascism, by its very nature, stands as a remarkably malleable and fickle ideology. Throughout its historical trajectory, from its early adoption by Benito Mussolini, it has showcased an inherent adaptability, allowing it to conform to the unique ideological needs and idiosyncrasies of those wielding its influence. Notably, even in its nascent stages, fascism demonstrated a proclivity for accommodation, making it susceptible to various interpretations and applications.

In exploring the expansive tapestry of fascist movements, a recurrent theme emerges – the fusion of fascism with religious fervor. This intersection is particularly pronounced in movements such as the infamous Iron Guard of Romania and the Ustase of Croatia, where the quest for power intertwines seamlessly with a desire to exert control over the spiritual dimensions of their respective nations. The resultant offspring of this intricate coupling is recognized on the world stage as Clerical Fascism.

While the amalgamation of religious influences within fascist movements is not unprecedented, these regimes often emerge as extremists, rivaling the fervor witnessed in National Socialism. Imbued with an unparalleled fanaticism, adherents of Clerical Fascism become consumed by theories of "salvation" intricately entwined with notions of race and nation. The practitioners of this ideology prophesy dire consequences unless their vision of racial purity is realized; a grim warning that suggests their people will face damnation both in the earthly realm and the afterlife.

Stratocratic Nazism[edit | edit source]

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the trajectory of Nazism took divergent paths, reflecting the ideological schisms that emerged within its folds. From the pragmatic reformism embodied by Speer to the steadfast orthodoxy championed by Oberländer, National Socialism underwent a multifaceted transformation, with various tendencies vying for ascendancy within the corridors of the Reichstag. Amidst this ideological kaleidoscope, one particular inclination rose to prominence, marked by the fervor of its main proponent – Joseph Goebbels' Stratocratic National Socialism.

Conceived by Goebbels in the early fifties, this strain gained momentum and found a vocal advocate in figures like Ferdinand Schörner following the untimely demise of the propagandist. Stratocratic National Socialism, in stark contrast to traditional Nazism, advocates for an intensified focus on the national military apparatus. At its core, this ideology calls for the implementation of stringent racial and antisemitic policies, an unwavering commitment to eugenics, and the exaltation of the very concept of war. Distinctively hawkish even among their fellow Nazi adherents, proponents of this ideology ardently advocate for a resolute stance against other major powers, firmly believing that victory in the Cold War is attainable through the uncompromising principles of Blood and Iron.

The proponents of Stratocratic National Socialism envision a militaristic renaissance, emphasizing the indispensability of military strength as the linchpin to their vision of a triumphant future. Their ideological stance posits that the Cold War can only be decisively won through an unwavering commitment to a robust military ethos.

Technocratic Nazism[edit | edit source]

Within the complex landscape of the Nazi movement, a dichotomy arises between those who advocate for a comprehensive merger of social and economic realms with the National Socialist Party at the core and those pragmatists who emphasize the centrality of the State. The more activist-minded members envision a societal configuration where the Party serves as the gravitational force, drawing together the spheres of society, people, and economy into a cohesive whole. Their vision foresees a collision and accretion of these elements, crystallizing into a society seamlessly intertwined with the Party's ideals.

In contrast, the self-described pragmatists of National Socialism advocate for a reorientation towards the State, ushering in a nuanced diarchy between the State and the Party. The Technocratic Nazis align themselves with the State, although the extent to which the Party should be subordinated sparks internal debates. Some propose a return to the "looser" system reminiscent of the 1930s, while others advocate for the Party to adopt a purely cultural role. Despite these nuances, all members of this National Socialist strain concur on the necessity of distinctly defined and separate roles for the State and the Party, with the former assuming a superior position while ensuring the Party remains controllable.

Within the realm of Technocratic Nazism, the proponents of State supremacy envision a recalibration of power dynamics. They propose abandoning the rigid Führerprinzip in favor of an oligarchic cabinet of ministers, diminishing the influence of Gauleiters, and purging bureaucratic ranks of careerists, corruption, and bloated institutions. Prioritizing education and science, they envision economic reforms to dismantle corporate cartels. Crucially, their focus lies in capturing the machinery of government, placing it in the hands of an educated class of expert and devoted National Socialists.

Stratocratic Corporatism[edit | edit source]

Stratocratic Corporatism, while not inherently fascist, undeniably draws inspiration from the core tenets of fascism. This inspiration manifests in the structuring of society according to a totalitarian, corporatist framework, wherein the military assumes a dominant role. The entirety of such a society becomes orchestrated to lend unequivocal support to the military, thereby contributing to the overarching well-being of the nation as a whole.

Beyond its corporatist, totalitarian structure, Stratocratic Corporatism often encompasses additional characteristics, and racial supremacy frequently emerges as a prominent, albeit not universal, element. Distinct from pseudo-scientific notions of a master race, as seen in Nazism, these societies tend to invoke a national spirit or mythology to bolster their assertions of racial superiority.

In the worldview of Stratocratic Corporatist societies, peace is perceived merely as a fleeting interval within an unending chain of wars. Consequently, the nation's physical and moral resources are perpetually poised for wartime mobilization. These governments grapple with the challenge of redirecting independently minded masses to look beyond personal concerns and focus on an abstract "destiny" for the nation. Compulsory membership in patriotic organizations, mobilizing marginalized segments of society into the workforce, and a constant demand for "token sacrifices" in the name of supporting an ever-expanding military are all strategies within the purview of such regimes. The inherent belief within these nations is that they cannot experience defeat, and the populace unwaveringly places its faith in the government's assurances that such declarations will endure.

Spartanism[edit | edit source]

For certain adherents of National Socialism, its past triumphs have forever immortalized its success, attributing its failures solely to specific misfortunes or political missteps. According to this perspective, the Reich, despite its imperfections, requires no radical overhaul; rather, it only demands reform or rejuvenation to perpetuate the existing status quo, ultimately relegating Germany to the status of just another enduring empire.

However, for Reinhard Heydrich and his fervent followers within the Deutsche-SS, such complacency is far from satisfactory. It will never suffice for them. In contrast to the Himmlerites, who immersed themselves in esoteric pursuits, and the Waffen-SS, who betrayed their cause for personal gain, Heydrich and his devotees harbored a distinct vision that diverged sharply from the perceived corruption of the NSDAP and the perceived degeneracy of liberals.

Their vision transcended the mundane, conceptualizing a society reminiscent of an ancient past—one that was superior, simpler, and purer. In this envisioned realm, men were warriors, women were mothers, and all forms of profligacy and weakness were eradicated. Cities marred by filth were replaced by barracks-towns and country estates, where the pure Aryan race diligently drilled for war and worked the land. Progeny were honed to perfection through purges and bloodshed, drawing inspiration from Heydrich's romanticized depiction of the Spartans as the ancient manifestation of Aryan supremacy. Their fervent belief held that when the world revolved upon the axis of Germany, even history itself would bend to the Führer's will.

To the true believers of National Socialism—the SS—it falls upon their shoulders to bring this promised land to fruition. Infused with the spirit of Sparta and reforged in the crucible of the Volksgemeinschaft, they envision a Reich that stands eternal. Even if the cost is measured in rivers of blood overtaking the sea, with countless millions choking and perishing, and the foundations of utopia laid upon the mass grave of all mankind, it is deemed a sacrifice worth making.

Revolutionary Nazism[edit | edit source]

The trajectory of the National Socialist Revolution has become a contentious subject within the Nazi movement, with fervent internal debates questioning the extent to which their ideology has truly reshaped societal relations. Behind closed doors, steadfast National Socialists often grapple with the haunting question of whether their revolutionary fervor has pushed far enough. The resounding response is typically a stern negative, accompanied by an unwavering commitment to drive even harder, to eschew compromise in the relentless pursuit of their ideological objectives. What some within the movement perceive as compromise, even among fellow Nazis, becomes a rallying point for the so-called revolutionary faction.

Revolutionary Nazism emerges as a distinctive tendency within National Socialism, advocating for an unyielding commitment to the ideological vision that transcends the boundaries of compromise. In this vision, the NSDAP transforms into a mobilizing force propelling a mass revolutionary-reactionary movement, intent on dismantling class barriers and undertaking a complete overhaul of social and economic structures. The radical tenets of Revolutionary Nazism envisage the annihilation of conservative forces, to be replaced by the omnipotent Party-state, while market systems, the Church, and non-Party entities in the army and civil service are slated for eradication. Large private enterprises would dissolve in the pursuit of a corporatist ideal, to be rearticulated and nationalized. The envisioned Ständestaat, a state-controlled corporatist economy, would encompass the activities of small and medium businesses and their middle-class managers, creating a society where every facet of life orbits around the party-state, becoming both the subject and object of the National Socialist Revolution.

Although Revolutionary Nazism experienced a decline after the tumultuous events of 1934, particularly the Röhm purge, echoes of its fervor persist among a handful of dedicated Gauleiters, SA men, and DAF officials. Despite the seemingly permanent malaise that befell the movement, the fervor of Revolutionary Nazism endures.

Rosenbergite Tendency[edit | edit source]

In the vast tapestry of movements, both grand and minuscule, a recurring theme emerges—the perennial struggle against orthodoxy. Among these crusaders, some are hailed as great men, battling against the rise of malevolent systems, vehemently defending rights and liberties. Others, like Alfred Rosenberg, found themselves embroiled in a more self-serving political struggle. Yet, even as time elapses and the dust of historical conflicts settles, the ideas, policies, and conceptions of such individuals persist, leaving an indelible mark on the ideological landscape.

The elusive Rosenbergite Tendency does not coalesce into a structured movement but instead comprises a diverse array of characters who, in one capacity or another, regard the ideas of Alfred Rosenberg as the quintessential German policy toward the East. For Rosenberg, a Baltic German, the East held more significance than merely a tract of land to colonize—it embodied a collection of nations awaiting upliftment and purification, a strategic wedge to dismantle the Russian nation entirely. Although the man himself has faded into obscurity in Germania, his policies continue to exert influence in the East, where his vision of the Reichskommissariats has not entirely lost its luster.

Intellectuals and thinkers, even years later, still find themselves drawn to Rosenberg's words, viewing them as a pragmatic and humanitarian policy that might have averted the maelstrom gripping the East. However, it is crucial to recognize that, despite this affinity for Rosenberg's ideas, adherents of the Rosenbergite Tendency remain firmly tethered to the broader National Socialist ideology. They share an unbreakable bond with the Reich and its violence, mirroring their colleagues in unwavering allegiance.

Naturalised National Socialism[edit | edit source]

National Socialism, birthed in the crucible of Germany and shaped by the unique contours of German racial identity and conditions, encountered a perplexing quandary as its influence expanded across much of Europe. The collision between this inherently German ideology and the diverse identities of collaborators within Eastern European nations, subjected to the mantle of German colonialism, gave rise to a distinctive offshoot—Naturalized National Socialism.

Unlike its more formally codified German counterpart, Naturalized National Socialism defies easy categorization, often adopting a highly personalized, almost ad-hoc application within Eastern Europe. Emerging as a product of conditions that necessitated a divergence from National Socialist tenets deemed incompatible, this ideology lacks the rigid formalization found in more established regimes. Its defining characteristic lies in the supremacy accorded to the national and cultural traits of its practitioners, a departure from the ethos of Nazi colonialism emanating from Germania.

The divergences inherent in Naturalized National Socialism extend beyond a mere departure from the tenets enforced by Germania. Often, these differences arise from practitioners basing their ideologies on entirely separate underpinnings, concealed beneath a superficial National Socialist facade. In other instances, it stems from practitioners aligning too closely with their own nation's characteristics, even when genuinely attempting to emulate the German model. The resilience of these seemingly contradictory regimes remains an open question, posing an intriguing challenge to whether they will endure as steadfastly as the envisioned Thousand-Year Reich.

Ariocriollismo[edit | edit source]

In the annals of 1953, a pivotal moment unfolded when Chairman Alfonso Uribe Misas of the Nationalist Action Party meticulously penned a grand manifesto, one that would echo through the corridors of Colombian ideology—the manifesto of Ariocriollismo. With resounding fervor, it proclaimed Criollos, individuals of European or mestizo descent in Colombia, as the master race not only within the nation's borders but ascribing them equal stature to the Aryan race in Germany. Enthralled by the triumphs of the European Aryans during the Second World War, adherents of Ariocriollismo pledged unyielding loyalty to Germany, aspiring to emulate their success in the fertile grounds of Colombia, the cherished homeland of the Criollos.

Central to the Ariocriollismo doctrine is the profound belief that an Aryan essence resides within every Criollo, awaiting awakening through a stringent regimen of discipline, enlightenment, and virtue—the foundational axes of the ideology and the path toward realizing their inherent superiority. These virtues, intricately woven into the fabric of Criollo identity, implore individuals to recognize their superior European heritage and to adopt the methodologies of the first-emancipated nation, Germany.

The inclusive reach of the Criollo concept extends beyond racial or color distinctions, beckoning any white or mestizo Colombian to rouse themselves from their figurative slumber and embrace the mantle of Ariocriollo. Yet, the doctrine takes a different stance for races such as the Afro-Colombian and the Indigenous, rendering it impossible for them to unlock the Aryan potential within a Criollo. Instead, their aspirations are confined to willingly assimilating into Ariocriollo culture and traditions, earning them the honorific prefix of 'Virtuous' before their racial identity. The alternative, for these races, is a stark binary—enslavement. As for the so-called 'Enemy Races' residing within Colombia, their fate is cast into a narrow corridor with only two options: escape or extermination. The Ariocriollo dream, according to this ideology, is incompatible with the presence of perceived impediments—vile Judaeans and foreigners.

Esoteric Nazism[edit | edit source]

Long before National Socialism burgeoned into a continent-conquering force, it thrived as a multifaceted movement, defying homogeneity and orthodoxy. From the pinnacles of power to the intricate labyrinths of Party bureaucracy, commitment to the ideals espoused by the state exhibited a kaleidoscopic spectrum, particularly at the individual level. To the skeptic, National Socialism might appear as an ill-fated concoction, a dubious blend of cynical politics interwoven with the less commendable facets of the German national character. From this perspective, the ascendance of Nazism seems nothing more than evidence of a world careening into madness.

Yet, how narrow-minded and unenlightened such a view proves to be. Amidst the cacophony of skepticism, there exist privileged souls who perceive in the tenets of National Socialism an ethos that transcends all others—an ethos capable of obliterating established truths and norms, unveiling the elusive path to utopia. For these fervent believers, the scales have been lifted from their eyes, and nothing else holds significance. Materialism, rationalism, morality—all exposed as transient illusions in a world marred by degeneracy and manipulated by sinister forces. To the enlightened, both subhumans and many Aryans remain oblivious to this newly illuminated reality. Yet, as long as the light of truth persists within a single uncorrupted heart, the flame of hope for the pure race endures. National Socialism, in their eyes, unfurls its wings in glory, beckoning all to follow it to whatever end, for it embodies the way, the light, and the truth.

Burgundian System[edit | edit source]

As the tides of fortune turned against Germany in the aftermath of the Second World War, a cohort of fanatical and unorthodox members within the Nazi Party, spearheaded by the enigmatic Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, grappled with the daunting challenge of reconciling their unwavering belief in the supremacy of National Socialism with the stark and increasingly unfavorable reality unfolding around them. Amidst the gathering shadows, a profound conviction emerged within this clandestine faction—they were the chosen few, uniquely equipped to salvage and preserve the true essence of National Socialism that they believed had been lost in the decadence and chaos of the collapsing Third Reich.

Quietly distancing themselves from the disintegrating political structures of the Reich, they embarked on a covert mission to construct parallel systems that would uphold their purified vision of Nazism. When Himmler assumed control over the SS-Ordensstaat Burgundy, he commenced the implementation of this distinct and unimpeded interpretation of National Socialism. Much like the elusive nature of the Reich's ideological goals centered around Hitler's increasingly erratic statements, the tenets of the Burgundian System remain remarkably ill-defined. Attempting to unravel its intricacies necessitates an analysis of Himmler's inscrutable actions and cryptic beliefs, ranging from vague and seemingly contradictory ideals such as agrarianism and hyper-industrialization to the establishment of a Germanic neopagan state religion and a foray into the realms of the occult.

What remains unequivocal, however, is the regime's commitment to pushing Nazi policies to an unparalleled extreme. The SS assumes an exalted position above all other social strata, draconian racial hygiene laws are rigorously enforced, and National Socialist theory is deliberately interwoven into every facet of daily existence. The regime, under Himmler's iron-fisted rule, imposes an unparalleled degree of totalitarianism upon the entire population, driven by the aspiration to eradicate any potential sources of decadence or complacency. The success or potential outcomes of this draconian approach remain shrouded in secrecy, known solely to the enigmatic Reichsführer Himmler.

Imperial Cult[edit | edit source]

In the solemn hours of the 17th of July 1918, Bolshevik revolutionaries orchestrated the tragic execution of the Romanov imperial family in the dim confines of a cellar beneath Yekaterinburg. Logically, this macabre event should have concluded the tale of House Romanov, casting them into the annals of history. However, the specter of the Romanovs persisted, haunting the collective consciousness of Russia. In the midst of revolution, warfare, and the dissolution of the old order, whispers circulated that perhaps one of Nicholas's progeny had eluded fate. As the fractures within the nation deepened, fantastical beliefs emerged, asserting that the Romanov children were in clandestine hiding, destined to return one day and usher in a renaissance of Russian greatness. These fantastical notions gradually coalesced around a singular figure, Sergey Taboritsky, and his imperial cult venerating the long-lost Alexei.

This shadowy movement, a mere husk of its former self, clings together through a patchwork of fear, imperial nostalgia, and vehement antisemitism. Its singular objective: to expedite the return of Alexei to Russia. Devotees ardently advocate for the mobilization of all state resources towards purification, ardently awaiting the savior's return once the Russian populace has proven themselves "worthy" of his presence. The movement's proponents fervently endorse the systematic extermination of Russia's minorities, the enforced impoverishment of the masses, and the erection of grandiose imperial monuments. The structure of their mass surveillance and draconian punishment draws inspiration directly from the purified realms of the Reichskommissariat Kaukasien and its leader, Josias—a figure openly admired by Taboritsky.

Yet, the movement's endurance remains shrouded in uncertainty. Each passing day without the return of their anticipated savior compounds the desperation within the cult.

Deep Ecology Nazism[edit | edit source]

The pristine dove, symbolizing peace, manifests its essence in the purity of white, embodying the natural order that prevails. Nature, devoid of kindness or acceptance, merely exists in its disciplined and thrifty state, portraying an austere peace through its own intrinsic balance. Within nature's domain, diverse clades of human beings coexist, each rooted in a unique place of origin, transcending the notion of a single, universal human race. It is in this intricate tapestry that Ecology emerges as the science of natural divisions, the science of nations, and ultimately, the science of the Fatherland.

From the crucible of industrial warfare arose Deep Ecology Nazism, a distinctive strain of National Socialism forged in response to the harrowing excesses of war. Its early adherents, witness to the brutal carnage and environmental degradation of Aryan lands in wars of aggression, felt the profound impact of mercury seeping into the soil and observed tanks pressing soldiers into the earth until man and mud intermingled. War, they believed, tainted both Aryan man and his living space. In response, Deep Ecology Nazism envisions a tranquil land where Aryans harmonize with their surroundings, singing of overgrown tillage and monumental mountains that, like stone ribs, symbolize their profound unity with the Fatherland. This ideology strives to reestablish a sustainable connection with the land akin to that of the Aryans' forebears, with adherents solemnly vowing to defend the land, even utilizing the tools of the Industrial Revolution if necessary.

In the realm of Deep Ecology Nazism, the ideal state of nature resides in the absence of the foreign, where the Aryan's land is exclusively his own. Within this sacred territory, slavery is nonexistent, for subhumans have long been purged by the natural order. War finds no place in the Aryan's land, as he already possesses his living space, his ancestral birthright, and the cherished land of his forefathers. Harmony and freedom flourish, entwined with nature and nation, fostering a sense of oneness in the Aryan land.

Other Ideologies[edit | edit source]

Antarctic Administration (Paternalism)[edit | edit source]

Used by The OFN Antarctic Administration, The Chilean Antarctic Territory and Argentine Antarctica

Ever since the scramble for Antarctica began in the 1950s, the continent has been divided by several competing territorial administrations. What started as a border dispute between the Chilean and Argentinean regimes morphed into an international incident requiring the mediation of the Organization of Free Nations. Not to be outpaced by the forces of liberty, National Socialism reared its head in the form of Nazi-controlled Neuschwabenland, attempting to enforce a policy of colonization by the pure, Polar, Aryan race. Finally, the Japanese arrived, ignoring all pretense of legitimate claims, seizing their slice of Antarctica through force of arms.

While each administration adheres to its specific ideological convictions, the harsh realities of life in the Great White Nothing, and lack of a notable civilian populace, has inveuced a measure of conformity amongst the regimes. All operate under some form of military governance, be they in direct control, in the case of Japan, or working alongside civilian partners, as with the OAA.

Under these hierarchies, many thousands of personnel labor in the bitter cold and biting winds, trying to justify their presence on "the Exiled Continent". Each power attempts to wrest some modicum of value from its slice of ice, however many observers have named this struggle the ultimate in sunk cost fallacy. None of the powers can back down while the others remain, regardless of their losses in money, material, or men. It would take a colossal shift in fortunes to make the Antarctic ventures profitable...

Antarctic Administration (Despotism)[edit | edit source]

Used by The Japanese Antarctic Sector

Ever since the scramble for Antarctica began in the 1950s, the continent has been divided by several competing territorial administrations. What started as a border dispute between the Chilean and Argentinean regimes morphed into an international incident requiring the mediation of the Organization of Free Nations. Not to be outpaced by the forces of liberty, National Socialism reared its head in the form of Nazi-controlled Neuschwabenland, attempting to enforce a policy of colonization by the pure, Polar, Aryan race. Finally, the Japanese arrived, ignoring all pretense of legitimate claims, seizing their slice of Antarctica through force of arms.

While each administration adheres to its specific ideological convictions, the harsh realities of life in the Great White Nothing, and the lack of a notable civilian populace, has induced a measure of conformity amongst the regimes. All operate under some form of military governance, be they in direct control, in the case of Japan, or working alongside civilian partners, as with the OAA.

Under these hierarchies, many thousands of personnel labor in the bitter cold and biting winds, trying to justify their presence on "the Exiled Continent". Each power attempts to wrest some modicum of value from its slice of ice, however many observers have named this struggle the ultimate in sunk cost fallacy. None of the powers can back down while the others remain, regardless of their losses in money, material, or men. It would take a colossal shift in fortunes to make the Antarctic ventures profitable...

Antarctic Administration (Nazism)[edit | edit source]

Used by Neuschwabenland

Since the commencement of the Antarctic scramble in the 1950s, the vast expanse of the frozen continent has become a theater of geopolitical contention, hosting a complex mosaic of competing territorial administrations. Initially sparked by a border dispute between the Chilean and Argentinean regimes, the situation escalated into an international incident necessitating the intervention of the Organization of Free Nations. Amidst the struggle for dominance, National Socialism manifested itself in the form of Nazi-controlled Neuschwabenland, advocating for the colonization of Antarctica by the pure, Polar, Aryan race. Adding to the tumult, the Japanese, with little regard for legitimate claims, forcefully seized their own portion of Antarctica.

Despite the distinctive ideological underpinnings of each administration, the unforgiving realities of life in the desolate expanses of the Great White Nothing, coupled with the absence of a substantial civilian populace, have cultivated a degree of conformity among the regimes. All operate under some form of military governance, whether directly in control, as seen in Japan's case, or in collaboration with civilian partners, exemplified by the Organization of Antarctic Administration (OAA).

Beneath these hierarchical structures, thousands of personnel toil relentlessly in the biting cold and relentless winds, striving to rationalize their presence on "the Exiled Continent." Each power endeavors to extract some semblance of value from their frigid domain, yet many observers dub this collective endeavor the epitome of the sunk cost fallacy. None of the competing powers can afford to withdraw while the others persist, irrespective of the monumental losses incurred in terms of finances, resources, or human lives.

Antarctic Administration (Esoteric)[edit | edit source]

Used by The Ahnenerbe Antarktis Gruppe

Under the banner of "Ancestral Heritage," the enigmatic organization known as the Ahnenerbe has been entrusted, since its inception in 1935, with the formidable task of unearthing archaeological evidence validating the purported biological superiority of the Aryan race. Forged by the directive of the Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, this eclectic assembly comprises archaeologists, theoreticians, and fervent Nazi ideologues, constituting a dedicated force that has diligently scoured the global landscape and its diverse cultures for tangible proof of Aryan Racial Theory. Over the past three decades, their relentless pursuit has led them from the expansive Reichskommissariats of the Lebensraum to the impenetrable jungles of Latin America, where agents of the Ahnenerbe have engaged in excavation, acquisition, and even theft of artifacts, with a particular emphasis on human remains.

The Ahnenerbe's unwavering mandate propels them to traverse the very extremities of the Earth in their quest for irrefutable evidence. Their ventures encompass a broad spectrum of projects, spanning from the peculiar Hollow Earth Theory to the ambitious Quest for the Irminsul, each dominating the minds of the Ahnenerbe's leadership. Reichsgeschäftsführer Wolfram Sievers, acting under Himmler's explicit orders, has embarked on a perilous expedition to Antarctica, driven by the mission to substantiate the World Ice Theory. This theory postulates that the world and its entirety originate from a glacial formation enveloping our observable universe. The scientific community universally derides the fantastical theories and illicit practices of the Ahnenerbe, much of which is deemed blatant fabrication and outright falsehoods. Despite the condemnation from the wider scientific community, these outlandish theories form the foundational bedrock of the National Socialist cause, shaping their deliberate denial of reality.

Under ordinary circumstances, the Ahnenerbe is perceived as an eccentric and extreme collective. Yet, the inhospitable conditions of Antarctica pose an unprecedented challenge to their psyches.

Harmonic Communism[edit | edit source]

(non-canon april fools content)

Nikolai Bukharin was once a broken man. Having spent twenty years in the Siberian tundra, he searched for answers to questions he barely knew how to ask. One fateful evening, he came across a strange crystal that granted him a vision of a society founded on one, central principle:

Friendship is Magic.

Harmonic Communism is an idealistic ideology that blends elements of Bukharinism with the idea that friendship is the praxis by which a socialist society is achieved. Followers of Harmonic Communism believe in the magic of friendship, where every conflict in all levels of society is solved through mediation and not violence. The ideology strives to implement a society in which conflicts are a thing of the past, and in which everyone in the state lives happily with one another through the power of friendship.

Followers of Harmonic Communism do still believe in class conflict, but they believe that it can be overcome in ways other than a violent revolution. Through the power of friendship, they believe they can break down class barriers and allow for the dictatorship of the proletariat to naturally form from the peaceful mediation of the workers' struggle. While many may see this as hilariously unrealistic in its idealism, Nikolai Buckharin has proven his ideology to be both surprisingly successful and attractive to the weary citizens of Russia. Soon, harmony and socialism will be spread throughout all of Russia, and even, eventually, the world

Dynastic Liberalism (Gabor)[edit | edit source]

(non-canon easter egg content)

To be a member of the US Democratic Party is to be part of a grand liberal tradition, passed down from one generation to the next. It is to be the inheritor of Madison and Jefferson's belief in the need for constitutional, democratic government. It is to be the standard bearer of Wilson's internationalism and support for robust institutions. It is to be the defender of the welfare state put in place by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and expanded by his successors Dwight D. Eisenhower and Estes Kefauver. The modern American liberal is the culmination of all these figures—a stalwart defender of civil rights, equality, social justice, and a regulated market economy. They look toward the future while firmly rooted in the traditions of the past.

But Zsa Zsa Gabor doesn't care about any of that. To be a liberal is not about history or grand ideals, it's about image. It's about style. Liberalism is hot girl shit like showing up to a movie premiere in a candy-pink gown and $600,000 worth of ruby and diamond jewellery. Domestically, Zsa Zsa's liberals are those who believe in dunking on generations of stodgy, sexless old men whose idea of American womanhood is captured by church hymns and reruns of "I Love Lucy." In foreign policy, Zsa Zsa liberals are about crushing the hand of the military-industrial establishment in favor of cocktail diplomacy and sexual liberation. We might not be able to bomb our way out of this Cold War horror show but, God damn it, we can make ourselves look good while it lasts.